Buried among the slew of papers about the new find is one about the creature's sex life. It makes fascinating reading, especially if you like learning why human females don't know when they are ovulating, and men lack the clacker-sized testicles and bristly penises sported by chimpanzees.

One of the defining attributes of Lucy and all other hominids--members of our evolutionary lineage, including ourselves--is that they walk upright on two legs. While Ardi also walked on two legs on the ground, the species also clambered about on four legs in the trees. Ardi thus offers a fascinating glimpse of an ape caught in the act of becoming human.

The problem is it is doing it in the wrong place at the wrong time--at least according to conventional wisdom, which says our kind first stood up on two legs when they moved out of the forest and onto open savanna grasslands. At the time Ardi lived, her environment was a woodland, much cooler and wetter than the desert there today.

Yeah, this find is very interesting, especially to anthropologists. It both sheds new light on our very ancient ancestors and questions some of the prevailing theories about the process/steps of that evolution.

I'm sure multiple new theories will arise in the wake of this discovery and the analysis of it. I'm very interested to hear them.

Throw out all the books that show man's earliest ancestors as knuckle-dragging, tree-swinging apelike creatures.

The truth is much different, Kent State anthropology professor C. Owen Lovejoy says.

Lovejoy is a key player in startling research announced today: The first humans were not as much like African apes as previously thought.

The journal Science released the first full description of Ardipithecus ramidis in twin press conferences in Washington, D.C., and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Scientists say the findings of the 4.4 million-year-old hominid species open a new chapter in human evolution, only a couple of million years after apes and humans shared their last common ancestor.

''The common ancestor we share is more like humans than apes,'' Lovejoy said last week in the casting room at KSU's Lowry Hall, where he conducted his work on Ardipithecus. ''Apes no longer make good intermediaries of what our common ancestors look like.''

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimplike creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor but each evolved and changed separately along the way."

"Ardi was ''a mosaic creature, that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human,'' said Professor Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, a lead author on the research.

Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor."

Did it happen to have a book with the words "Don't Panic" on the cover in big red friendly letters?

"People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

Lovejoy presents his research in a special Oct. 2 issue of the journal Science, which will feature 11 papers that are the first formal description of "Ardi," a partial female skeleton. Lovejoy was first author on five papers and contributed to an additional three.

Still older than Adam.

Oddly enough, this pic was on the cover

#6 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-10-01 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag: nanc resembles that remark

".... we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

So, not only is there no missing link, there is a missing evolutionary trail.

Still waiting for Christians to find the missing link between god and the bible.

Deflections instead of thread comments.

Ray could have prophesied that that would happen.

Gee, from #'s 6 and 10, you'd think that this discovery is somehow upsetting news to atheists.

Can't think of why.....

The first 4 million years of human evolution
Monday 19 to Tuesday 20 October 2009
Discussion Meeting
The Royal Society
Address:
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London
SW1Y 5AG

Fascinating discovery . . .

"The common ancestor looked like Ardi. It's the chimp and gorilla that have evolved enormously, not hominids. Hominids have concentrated their evolution in two things -- upright walking and brain. Everything else is pretty primitive," Lovejoy said.

It's pretty amazing to look at that hominid and think that it led to humankind and human civilization 4.4 million years later. I hope we're an improvement.

Still waiting for Christians to find the missing link between god and the bible.

#10 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-01 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag
STILL WAITING FOR RAY TO FIND THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN HIS HEAD AND HIS ASS

I believe that the earth was created in 6 days... :P

Gee RCADE - did not like my blog entry? Same subject - different source. You totally wiped it clean - even from my post history. Nice.

-I hope we're an improvement

Not counting Firm of Beck, Hannity, Palin, Malkin Coulter, and Bachmann, you may be right.

#17 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2009-10-01 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag: STILL WAITING FOR JESUS TO RETURN

Elcid had this story up first with a different article. Usually Rogers merges them.

#21

I always hate in when people push religion into a scientific discussion, roflmao!!

hate IT

Deflections instead of thread comments.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-01 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Master of deflection

4.4 Million years of evolution..... and Michelle Bachmann is still in Congress!!

(sorry, had to do it)

and Michelle Bachmann is still in Congress!!

It's the work that she avoids. She loves to work at nothing all day.

I don't know, Ray, you posted twice here mentioning religion when no one else had.

I always hate in when people push religion into a scientific discussion, roflmao!!

#23 | Posted by Corky

Because scienctific discoveries like this make a mockery of religion. What was Corky thinking?

ITS SHAQ!

I've read speculation that chimps might have evolved from us more than us evolving from them before, so that idea is not entirely new.

However, the new fossils give us yet one more benchmark to work by. All in all, an excellent day for science.

I've noted a few folks above brushing the religion subject.

I don't see any religion being pressed, but I sure as heck see some IGNORANT bigots trying to snipe AT religion.

This particular story seems to make a mockery of a premise, that humans evolved directly from apes, that you have spouted for years.

Methinks Raystradamus doth protest too much!

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-01 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cheers - don't care about credit - Just went looking for mine and did not find it. Until I saw yours, I thought he had censored it for some reason.

I don't know, Ray, you posted twice here mentioning religion when no one else had.
#28 | Posted by Corky

It stems from my curiosity to know what the Bible says about this.

Old Chinese Proverb say: Man who thinks he knows everything just monkeying around

Gee RCADE - did not like my blog entry? Same subject - different source. You totally wiped it clean - even from my post history. Nice.

When posts are merged, the non-merged posts disappear and comments are merged. In this case, you turned the story into an excuse to make a primate joke about the Obamas and the only comments were about you, so I didn't use it.

Because scienctific discoveries like this make a mockery of religion. What was Corky thinking?

#29 | Posted by Ray

EVERYTHING makes a mockery of religion.....even Bible babblers.....

I hope we're an improvement.

#16 | Posted by rcade

Look around this blog...We still throw our feces at each other.

I think Kirk Cameron has something to say about all this.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2009-10-01 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fair enough.

The only people who think science makes a mockery of religion are those who are looking to mock religion to begin with. All science does is help fill in the holes.

Science- the method
G-d - the reason

This particular story seems to make a mockery of a premise, that humans evolved directly from apes, that you have spouted for years.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-01 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Liar

Lying is a sign of desperation.

All science does is help fill in the holes.

Pray tell. What hole does this fill?

"...and the only comments were about you, so I didn't use it." - RCade

Ah, come on, my comment mentioned him only as an afterthought. And it otherwise contained great wisdom - though I don't remember what.

"It makes fascinating reading, especially if you like learning why human females don't know when they are ovulating, and men lack the clacker-sized testicles and bristly penises sported by chimpanzees."

So.... it IS still possible that Dick Cheney evolved from chimps?

Pray tell. What hole does this fill?

#43 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-01 03:12 PM

I don't understand the question. What hole are you speaking of? All this shows is that some things began evolving sooner than others. This does not disprove either G-d or evolution.

Looking at the picture included in the article I notice it matches my pre-existing mental image of what Goatman probably looks like.

Duh dun dun. Thank you. I'm here all week.

j/k

-Lying is a sign of desperation.

And what, pray tell, lie might that be, O Mighty Raystradamus?

Looking at the picture included in the article I notice it matches my pre-existing mental image of what Goatman probably looks like.

Fair enough.

#40 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-10-01 03:09 PM | Reply |

Owned like a little girl.

Your granddaughter is beautiful. Congratulations. I have two granddaughters of my own. I consider them to be bundles of happiness.

Ok, seems some anti-religion BIGOTS just INSIST on making religion a point of discussion....

fine...

I have no faith, I follow no religion, I follow no faith, and I especially don't follow the FAITH of atheism.

The reason is that while I have no faith in any religious belief or faith, I am not will to discount them either.

NOTHING has been proven or disproven.

While not all atheists are stinking obnoxious bigots, many are. The bigots are VERY selective about religion related points they press. All points they press reference a religious document written by men, and observable detail that call the accuracy of the religious document into question.

This only proves that the anti-religious bigots feel themselves to be on the same intellectual level as trailer trash and LESSER meddle ages science.

They actively and AGGRESSIVELY ignore any aspect of religion that does not lend itself to science.

And they especially ignore the simple fact that many many aspects central to religion are not about science to begin with.

The most interesting religious theory I've heard yet is that the universe is a "free will machine" made to a "womb of souls", and that every ethics driven decision made by thinking creatures forwards that objective.

The above theory, if true, would not at all contradict the core elements of a number of faiths, and also has no spiritual need for itself to offer scientific proof of its own existance. I'm actually quite fond of the idea. But truth told, I see no proof, so I withhold judgement.

Tne Bigots want to argue with Popes from the middle ages while armed with 500 years of hind sight while focused on spitually irrelavent points of debate, and they wonder why so many folks dont take them seriously.

And what, pray tell, lie might that be, O Mighty Raystradamus?

#48 | Posted by Corky

There's a common ancestry between man and ape that began long before man and ape.

I don't understand the question. What hole are you speaking of? All this shows is that some things began evolving sooner than others. This does not disprove either G-d or evolution.

#46 | Posted by kanrei

What holes in the bible does science fill? That's especially ridiculus since science is atheistic. What happened to the long running creation argument?

Ah, Raystradamus, the Cryptic Deflector.

Does that stuff fly in Ray's Bunker?

What holes in the bible does science fill? That's especially ridiculus since science is atheistic. What happened to the long running creation argument?

Plenty. Catch up on your Clarence Darrow.

Your granddaughter is beautiful.

And I'm not? (just kidding. I know I'm ugly as sin) Seriously, thanks. She certainly is.

I have two granddaughters of my own. I consider them to be bundles of happiness.

I never realized what joy a grandchild could bring until I first held her. All the while my daughter in law was pregnant, I was kind of ho-hum about the whole thing. But since she was born 17 months ago, I have found joys in her I never imagined. So I know exactly what you mean.

And spoiling her is great!

What happened to the long running creation argument?

You are still having it. I have come to realize that evolution and creation are not opposing points of view. You can believe in the Big Bang Theory as the creation of the universe; so do I, but I also feel that religion answers the question of "what caused the Big Bang" or "what was before it."

"or some funny thing in between."

So Corky, Bob, danni, woke and others are the missing link?

Why is these threads always turn into Chat Rooms with goat turds on the floor?

No missing link, Crispee. I know the articles with multisyllabic words are tough, but give it a try, eh?

"That's especially ridiculus since science is atheistic." - Ray

False. Science takes no stance on any religion or god. Its function is to explain what can be explained as much as it can be explained.

Why is these threads always turn into Chat Rooms with goat turds on the floor?

Because your colostomy bag has a hole in it?

Plenty. Catch up on your Clarence Darrow.
#56 | Posted by kanrei

That's a copout answer. Science disproves the bible. Let's start with the age of the universe.

#62 And besides, atheism is a stealth religion.

Just ask a prominent atheist and evolutionist.

Ah well, between Ray wanting to deflect to ridiculing the Bible, and all the goat turds, I guess this thread is done.

That's a copout answer.

Only to someone who knows nothing at all about the Scopes Monkey trial.

False. Science takes no stance on any religion or god. Its function is to explain what can be explained as much as it can be explained.

#62 | Posted by AILtd

False. Science has no need of the god hypothesis to explain nature. Athiest means non-theist, not against theism.

C'mon - I'm waiting for one of you guys to say, "I'd hit it."

"No missing link, Crispee. I know the articles with multisyllabic words are tough, but give it a try, eh?"

Try learning how to laugh once in your life. Even bad jokes can be funny.

Only to someone who knows nothing at all about the Scopes Monkey trial.

#67 | Posted by kanrei

I spent almost ten years debunking the Bible. See my website, usbible.com. I probably know the bible better than you.

"Athiest means non-theist, not against theism."

Ray is correct. A-theism equals not-theism, nothing else.

I spent almost ten years debunking the Bible. See my website, usbible.com. I probably know the bible better than you.

#71 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-01 03:46 PM

Your arguments are a horrible advertisement for your site. Perhaps you should read the Bible just once before you started your ten year quest of irrelevancy.

I don't knnow about the atheist/agnostics out there, but every time the fossil record yields another piece of the puzzle it just brings me personally, spiritually if you will, closer to the creator. It proves to me that all will be revealed in time.

-C'mon - I'm waiting for one of you guys to say, "I'd hit it."

101 isn't here......

Ray can't even spell it. It is Atheist, not Athiest

-C'mon - I'm waiting for one of you guys to say, "I'd hit it."

Herm actually did.

Tadowe hit it when it was 13 years old.....

Religion was bunk the minute they found anything older than the proprieters of that filth.

Your false gods have NEVER existed, save in the minds of the fearmongers.

Save me the bullshit.

And yes, this is another nail in the coffin of religion.

Your arguments are a horrible advertisement for your site. Perhaps you should read the Bible just once before you started your ten year quest of irrelevancy.
#73 | Posted by kanrei

You're avoiding specifics again.

You're avoiding specifics again.

#80 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-01 03:53 PM

You never even attempted them.

"False. Science has no need of the god hypothesis to explain nature. Athiest means non-theist, not against theism." - Ray

False. Unless you can show me where science states that it is atheistic and that all religions are wrong and that no god exists, you are unequivocally wrong.

Also, many scientists, including many very brilliant ones, are religious. Try telling them science is atheistic.

Athiesm as practiced today is a FAITH.

It CONCLUDES on the nature of the Universe using only absense of scientific proof of God as conclusive proof that there is no God. It ASSUMES the non-spiritual nature of the universe based entirely on FAITH.

And there is nothing wrong with that. A fair number of hard core athiests are polite open minded people (who don't blow a mental fuse when they see children singing that Jesus loves them...)....

As for science, it is religion NEUTRAL. Science is a tool used for analyzing things of all sorts WITHIN the physical universe. It is NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.

Some athiests are sadly stupid. These ones are often called "militant athiests". They can usually be spotted arguing against points made by Popes 500 years ago.

Only to someone who knows nothing at all about the Scopes Monkey trial.

#67 | Posted by kanrei

I spent almost ten years debunking the Bible. See my website, usbible.com. I probably know the bible better than you.

Probably. He's Jewish

And it also depends on the shit your smoking

Nothing you have ever said in these threads Ray, and I mean literally NOTHING, has ever given anyone the slightest indication that you have even the beginning of a clue of what you speak of. Your asking for specifics is almost as funny as your usual post.

Goat,
I have read the NT, well the King James NT. I felt that, when being attacked by Christians, one of us should know what it says =D

"Also, many scientists, including many very brilliant ones, are religious. Try telling them science is atheistic."

#82 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-10-01 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag: bullshit

"It's a consequence of the experience of science. As you learn more and more about the universe, you find you can understand more and more without any reference to supernatural intervention, so you lose interest in that possibility.

*Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists.*

And that, I think, is one of the great things about science -- that it has made it possible for people not to be religious."
-- Steven Weinberg

"Ray is correct. A-theism equals not-theism, nothing else." - Nulli

Per Wikipedia:
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. The term atheism originated from the Greek atheos, meaning "without gods".

#88 | Posted by Zatoichi

Steve Weinberg is proof of the adage that scientists make lousy philosophers.

#74

Ditto!!

And before ya'll jump all over God, Christianity, etc., I want you to know, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, Atheists and all....

I LOVE YOUR GUTS!!!!!

Ok....let the slamfest on Spirituality begin!!!

Depends on how you define Religion.

religion - noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

You never even attempted them.
#81 | Posted by kanrei
Let's go to the tape.

In #41, you said "All science does is help fill in the holes.
Science- the method
G-d - the reason

And I asked: "Pray tell. What hole does this fill?"
#43 | Posted by Ray

You keep avoiding my question. I'll ask again. What holes in religion does science fill?

Goat,
I have read the NT, well the King James NT.

I meant no offense, and I knew that was a possibility, so that's why I qualified my statement with "probably".

Hope you weren't offended.

BTW, even though I'm an atheist, I've read the NT, too. Didn't like it much. The OT was much more interesting to me.

"Also, many scientists, including many very brilliant ones, are religious."

So what? There are brilliant people--in their respective fields--who believe in astrology. And why not? There's just as much evidence for astrology as for any bullshit religion.

What hole are you speaking of? All this shows is that some things began evolving sooner than others. This does not disprove either G-d or evolution.

#46 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-01 03:14 PM

Not avoiding, not caring to answer. There is a difference.

"In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities."

Yes, the absence of belief. Non-theism. No different than a-leprechaunism, the absence of belief in leprechauns.

#95 | Posted by nullifidian

The point is, they work in science, are very good at it, yet would be stunned to hear it is "atheistic".

This definition would include Atheism.
#92 | Posted by kanrei

Oh baloney! The difference is between belief with evidence and belief without evidence. Next you'll be trying to say science is a religion.

Nulli, your lack of belief in a creator is just as much a matter of faith as my belief in a creator.

Your no different.

In our lifetime, you will NEVER know.

On the other hand, if after your heart stops beating and your brain goes dark, your still around, you will know for dang sure there was something to a belief in a creator.

If not, your just done. No more Nulli.

#88 | Posted by Zatoichi

July 22, 2009

former prominent atheist Antony Flew: "the integrated complexity of life points to God"

Antony Flew, British philosopher and former atheist, looks at the same evidence as Richard Dawkins and comes to the opposite conclusion:

He says the "unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life" shows that "intelligence must have been involved."

video

"The common ancestor looked like Ardi. It's the chimp and gorilla that have evolved enormously, not hominids. Hominids have concentrated their evolution in two things -- upright walking and brain. Everything else is pretty primitive," Lovejoy said.
#15 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-01 02:24 PM

Homo floresiensis was recently alive (may still be) on Flores Indonesia. Even Sasquatch still has occasional sightings. Does this mean that the Christian version of "creation" has some merit? That humans were evolved here after the evolution of other simians by a compelling, even "alien" means? That might easily account for the lack of data, but it also might confirm the multitude that has not been recorded, or even recordable. Science and religion still question the existence of cities under the ocean in the face of hundreds of cultures writing about the great deluge.

I'm also still mystified by the mistranslation of "Adam's rib" - it's not funny any longer, just a sick reminder of the religious "principals" of deception.

Nulli, your lack of belief in a creator is just as much a matter of faith as my belief in a creator.

That is not true. We are all born tabula rasa. If you happened to be raised in Iran your would have a strong Muslim faith.

"Nulli, your lack of belief in a creator is just as much a matter of faith as my belief in a creator."

Total bullshit. You theists always try to pull atheists into the same mystical swamp you dwell in. Sorry, but atheists don't have "faith". That's what you have, and that's all you have. No facts. No evidence. Nothing.

Nulli, your lack of belief in a creator is just as much a matter of faith as my belief in a creator.

Now that's a piece of doubletalk if ever I saw one.

Belief WITH evidence is not faith.

all living things die!
man doesn't want to die, so he invents a life after death, makes it easier to die I guess. Some people give up their real life in favor of one that doesn't exist, that's sad!

now what job do you want in your afterlife with no body or just be a lapdog for your god (pet people)

and what do you think that muslim will do when he finds that the soul ain't got no peepee (72 virgins and no peepee)

So....humankind "evolved" unguided by any superior plan....just as your house evolved all by itself....how naive.....duhhhh

""It ASSUMES the non-spiritual nature of the universe based entirely on FAITH."""

Almost. It's more non belief in religion because of complete lack of proof. They believe in what can be observed, quantified and measured...in other words, in reality.

So....humankind "evolved" unguided by any superior plan....just as your house evolved all by itself....how naive.....duhhhh

#107 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2009-10-01 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why is naive? Relegating everything that you don't understand in one lump called god is naive. questioning a phenomena until proven is called critical thinking.

Antony Flew, British philosopher and former atheist, looks at the same evidence as Richard Dawkins and comes to the opposite conclusion:

We went through this before. Flew is in a tiny minority among his peers. Philosopher Flew cannot possibly evaluate the evidence with the skill, biologist Dawkins has.

#105 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-01 04:16

Work with me here Ray. Get over your biased. Science in no way disproves the notion of a creator. It is silent on the subject.

For me, scientific advancements enhance my belief, my faith in a creator. For you they do the opposite. Very well.

The big bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit priest.

And Einstein said "My sense of God is my sense of wonder at the universe."

"So....humankind "evolved" unguided by any superior plan....just as your house evolved all by itself....how naive.....duhhhh"

#107 | Posted by Greatamerican

My house has not evolved other than falling apart.

And your assertion that Flew is a 'tiny minority' among his peers is bullshit and you know it. You don't speak for the scientific community. I spent plenty of time in higher halls of education myself Ray.

The day people accept that science and philosophy/religion are two very different approaches to learning the truth, and that neither is the ultimate nor sole arbitrator of the ultimate truth, will be the day humans take a huge step up the path of evolution. Till then, those who make such claims are arrogant idiots and are a chain on humanity.

So....humankind "evolved" unguided by any superior plan....just as your house evolved all by itself....how naive.....duhhhh

#107 | Posted by Greatamerican

And what superior plan did God evolve from?

#114: Accepted, done.

End of this thread.

For me, scientific advancements enhance my belief, my faith in a creator. For you they do the opposite. Very well.

The big bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit priest.

And Einstein said "My sense of God is my sense of wonder at the universe."

#111 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-10-01 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The references you are making indicate that some scientists believe in some type of higher force or universal power that set things in motion, ie the organization of the basic laws of physics of this universe. In no way does it give any credence to earthly organized religions, which advocate an interventionist god and a series of super heroes performing magical stunts. The more science learns, the more organized religions have to backtrack on their dogma, on their tenets.

Work with me here Ray. Get over your biased. Science in no way disproves the notion of a creator. It is silent on the subject.

It is silent because there is nothing to say about nothing. I'm not being facetious.

The big bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit priest.

Somewhere science lost its way when it subscribed to the idea that something comes from nothing. It violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

But I can use logic and reason to demonstrate that the ideas about God are self-contradictory.

"And what superior plan did God evolve from?

Posted by Redman"

God Senior.

The references you are making indicate that some scientists believe in some type of higher force or universal power that set things in motion, ie the organization of the basic laws of physics of this universe. In no way does it give any credence to earthly organized religions, which advocate an interventionist god and a series of super heroes performing magical stunts. The more science learns, the more organized religions have to backtrack on their dogma, on their tenets.

#117 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-10-01 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Never said it did.

Presumption/assumption is taken for science in the dogma of evolution.

What's really funny is that most fundie type atheists argue against claims made by fundie type religionists..... thereby basing much of what they argue against on what fundie religionists believe.

David Wilson makes excellent arguments for atheism as a stealth religion, especially those atheists who think they have all the answers, much like their religious twins.

Andrew Flew observes that a single-cell organism hasn't the capacity to hold all the info needed to perform as it must in nature, so he sees intelligence instead of chaos.

Non-fundie religionists might note to fundie atheists that the earth isn't 6000 years old, no matter what some California preacher who counted generations might say, that Genesis records a re-creation and a re-plenishment, not an original creation, and that in later books the prophets had visions of the earth pre-Genesis, that described "men" and cities. Also that the terms in old Hebrew for "man" and "Adm" (Adam), are different and used differently in Genesis.

Just sayin'.

And your assertion that Flew is a 'tiny minority' among his peers is bullshit and you know it. You don't speak for the scientific community. I spent plenty of time in higher halls of education myself Ray.
#113 | Posted by boojiboy

I've see surveys in the Secular Humanist magazine, Free Inquiry.

Pancho:

No matter what scientists claim, the Bible is not going to change.

"....the organization of the basic laws of physics of this universe. "

Where there are laws, there must be a lawmaker. But not necessarily a micromanager.

Fascinating discovery . . .

Yep. I was awed.

per the BBT

-Somewhere science lost its way when it subscribed to the idea that something comes from nothing.

Science is OK unless it has the temerity not to agree with Ray.

Then it sucks big time.

"End of this thread."
#116 | Posted by boojiboy

No, this thread is supposed to be about the discovery and its relation to the evolution of humans. And my statement in no way impacts that.

Isn't this critter more ape than human, even though its bipedal?

Andrew Flew observes that a single-cell organism hasn't the capacity to hold all the info needed to perform as it must in nature, so he sees intelligence instead of chaos.

Any biologist will tell you the opposite. Our bodies are not driven by an external intelligence. That's midieval nonsense.

There's an emerging science of chaos and complexity that maintains that order comes from the spontaneous activity of nature's elements. Flew knew nothing about it.

No matter what scientists claim, the Bible is not going to change.

That's probably true... the text will not change appreciably.

The interpretations of the bible that are popular with Christians, however, have constantly changed over the centuries and will continue to do so in the future. In the best case scenario, science will provide the context for people to grow in their faith. Unfortunately, I would put my money on people continuing to quibble about silly things that they can't support anyway.

No matter what scientists claim, the Bible is not going to change.
#124 | Posted by Lisa

On the contrary. It changes with every revision. There must be a dozen or more in current circulation. No hand written Bible is the same.

-an emerging science

A scribbling on an outhouse wall, more like.

Single cells haven't the capacity to store an amount of info equivalent to the Encyclopedia Britannica.... and any biologist really will tell you that.

I pity Darwin worshippers....

Case in point... Takitez prefers to keep his head in a hole. I won't specify which one, but I think you could guess.

"Flew is in a tiny minority among his peers." - Ray

Hilarious, coming from the person who insists that the Austrian school of economics, a tiny minority among its peers, is correct and the rest are wrong.

"Philosopher Flew cannot possibly evaluate the evidence with the skill, biologist Dawkins has."

Philosophy/theology are not biology. They are philosophy/theology and biologist Dawkins cannot possibly evaluate the evidence with the skill philosopher Flew has.

Flew also said:

"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."[13]

A very intelligent man, also known for his development of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in logic.

But Ray knows best, I'm sure.

Single cells haven't the capacity to store an amount of info equivalent to the Encyclopedia Britannica.... and any biologist really will tell you that.

#134 | Posted by Corky

That comparison is irrelevent.

Every cell has the DNA structure it needs to function. Biology 101

Philosophy/theology are not biology. They are philosophy/theology and biologist Dawkins cannot possibly evaluate the evidence with the skill philosopher Flew has.

#136 | Posted by AILtd

What kind of convoluted logic is that? They are both specialists in their respected field. Define what evidence you are talking about?

Ah yes, the BBT is irrelevant. The origin from DNA of the first reproducing species is irrelevant.

Bomb shelters and gold and 1400 point stock markets... now that's relevant!

All evolutionists are theists.... all evolutionists believe in a god call TIME --- time is creator and miracle worker to evolutionists.

I pity Darwin worshippers.

#141 | Posted by takitez at 2009-10-01 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag: idiot & lunatic

But Ray knows best, I'm sure.
#137 | Posted by Corky

What is there to know? The First Cause Argument makes an arbitrary assumption that there was a first cause. Second, it contradicts itself by assuming the first cause didn't have a cause.

The problem of not having a creator is only a problem if you think that something was created.

just as your house evolved all by itself....how naive....

houses are NOT alive...did you notice?

all evolutionists believe in a god call TIME

Takitsleazy...TIME is a law (actually I believe it is considered the fourth dimension)

Do you really think we worship laws or dimensions?

BTW- OBAMA won! YOUR God was wrong or he lied to you (again).

"What kind of convoluted logic is that? They are both specialists in their respected field. Define what evidence you are talking about?" - Ray

Yep, they are. Since the topic was "god", and philosophy/theology deals with that topic and science has no interest in it, the philosopher by default becomes the expert, not the biologist.

Ah yes, the BBT is irrelevant. The origin from DNA of the first reproducing species is irrelevant.

The BBT is one of science's unfortunate detours. First there were amino acids. Then there was RNA. Organisms followed billions of years later. This is a good example of spontaneous order as described in complexity theory.

Wow, people still waste the effort to respond to Takitez. Proves there is a God.

Yep, they are. Since the topic was "god", and philosophy/theology deals with that topic and science has no interest in it, the philosopher by default becomes the expert, not the biologist.

Philosphers who specialize in religion are known as theologians. Without evidence that can be observed, it's all words.

Geez, Rogers, you really think this is bigger news than "LIONS WIN!!"?

Single cells haven't the capacity to store an amount of info equivalent to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The whole genome size-complexity issue is fascinating. The human genome is extremely small given the complexity of a human. A species of amoeba has a genome over 200 times larger. The human genome is under 800 megabytes if you just count nucleotide sequence. Only a few percent actually encodes genes and regulatory elements. It's fascinating.

-What is there to know?

That most of science disagrees with you.

That the BBT mathematically predicts a singularity existing outside space/time fractions of a fraction of a second prior to the BB.

And that all the materials needed to form the universe did not evolve over time, but existed a fraction of a second after the BB.

Other than that, not much, I guess..... except that this, from alllt is worth repeating....

-Hilarious, coming from the person who insists that the Austrian school of economics, a tiny minority among its peers, is correct and the rest are wrong.

"Philosphers who specialize in religion are known as theologians. Without evidence that can be observed, it's all words." - Ray

Why did you take the effort to create such a worthless post?

#153
he had a few words he needed to use up...

"... alllt ..." - Corky

OK, I searched the entire thread. Who the hell is that? And why did he/she steal my line?

All evolutionists are theists.... all evolutionists believe in a god call TIME

So if you believe in god, you don't believe in time.

....It's all words"

Sing with me brother,

"It's only words. And words are all I have, to take your heart away"

Dang...you don't sound like a BeeGee!! :)

On the contrary. It changes with every revision.

Most of the changes are minor when compared to changes in their interpretation.

That most of science disagrees with you.

That the BBT mathematically predicts a singularity existing outside space/time fractions of a fraction of a second prior to the BB

That's why I said science took an unfortunately detour. The BBT is based strictly on mathematics. Mathemetics cannot prove the beginning of the universe anymore than words can. More so, it runs into the same creationist fallacies.

#156 | Posted by ZombieHunter

_Another_ reply to Take ... how much more proof is needed that God _must_ exist?

"The BBT is based strictly on mathematics." - Ray

Where do you come up with this crap? You _very_ obviously haven't read up on the theory.

Why did you take the effort to create such a worthless post?
#153 | Posted by AILtd

I forgot to consider your limitations.

Where do you come up with this crap? You _very_ obviously haven't read up on the theory.
#161 | Posted by AILtd

This time, I'll consider your limitations.

Corky lost me when he called me an atheist.

I hate IT when Christians consider non-christians atheist like they have some monopoly on God or something.

"This time, I'll consider your limitations." - Ray

Wow, that certainly explains how the vast majority of the BBT theorists can demonstrate that it is based on observation and analysis, not strictly on math.

No offence, but you sound utterly imbecilic when you make such statements.

You have to wonder how many of these things were on the arc.

A scribbling on an outhouse wall, more like.

Single cells haven't the capacity to store an amount of info equivalent to the Encyclopedia Britannica.... and any biologist really will tell you that.

Posted by Corky at 2009-10-01 04:43 PM | Reply

Totally false. You can store not only a cot with You in it but Your toilet and sink PLUS a Table with connecting chair WITH a Laptop filled with all the information in the world in a single celled organism. It most certainly has the capacity. You might however have trouble talking the Warden into allowing You a Laptop with WiFi access. But I am sure if You are rich enough You could grease the wheels necessary for that. Hell You could even have two wardens. One in the jont and one here at the Retort. Just think if You received a 14 day Vacation from RCADE. You could get a class 1 write up for that by Your housing warden. Just sayin

Larry

"The BBT is based strictly on mathematics."

Corky, this clown is all yours. When someone starts stating making such idiotic statements, reason has left the building and I am following.

..."houses are NOT alive...did you notice?

DONNERBOY"

The odds of bits of energy particles "evolving" into a human or a butterfly, without a "plan" is the point...."aliveness" happened randomly? Then proceeding randomly to complex lifeforms? That's the big question.

The method of appplying words or mathematics without an underlying reference to reality is a common logical error when one confuses the words for what they are supposed to represent. Words and math in of themselves do not constitute proof.

When the BBT theorists came to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning, they should have reassed their interpretiion of the evidence. Unfortunatly, they ignored the most basic tenets of science.

I have to go.

change is slow and steady

only functional change survives

such a system is simple and reliable compared to a central design god or team.

I realize it's a bit off topic, but that hominid has cameltoe.

I've see surveys in the Secular Humanist magazine, Free Inquiry.

#123 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-01 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Boy there's an un-biased source!?!?!?!?

#172 | Posted by anton

Yea and she could use a little extra support!

The odds of bits of energy particles "evolving" into a human or a butterfly, without a "plan" is the point...."aliveness" happened randomly?

Might be the point but a horrible analogy.

Life has it's own plan... survival of the fittest.. I thought this was pretty well understood by now.

as for "aliveness"... now THAT is the question isn't it?

But, given the vastness of TIME and SPACE is it really unreasonable for for the Universe to be "inclined" at some point in time to want to be able to rise up and take a look at itself?

Bogus.
There would be at least more missing links than human if there inded were any. The idea of finding"9 million year old fossils and 100,000 year old fossils but none in between is preposterous.

The genes between the two reside on totally different chromosomes between human and ape, you would have to redo everything from scrath.
Face it, your false religion is false, there is no evolution

It is God that made us, not we ourselves.

Psa 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;

In King davids time, 4000 years ago, they had false evolution from Egypt, he rejected it.
Be smart, not dumb, evolution exists for one reason, so you don't think there is a judgment day coming in a few months and be ignorantly happy until the tidal waves take you out.

#176 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-01 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag: fail

King David is a myth for idiots.

Evolution is totaly impossible.

All protein enzymes in plants and animals are Left isomers. (Go look it up)
Ask any physics professor or chem teacher you cannot make any amino acid in solution in the chem lab that is not an equal mix of left and right isomers 50/50. They know it. I have a high degree after biology and I know this is never talked about.

It is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for proteins to be all made LEFT ISOMER for every animal fish plant with absolutely no RIGHT ISOMER.

Not only that, the sugars are all D-isomers all DNA is D isomer, this CANNOT happen on its own.

In fact, the only way Monsanto can make D- isomer amino acids for chemo therapyis to isolate the protein/gene from a living organism.

How did those specific enzymes all happen to develop L?

EVOLUTION? - Preposterous totally.

And there will be no response on this, your Biochem Doc will ignore your questions.

"King David..."

Is just a little more written history that will be made tangible by the spade.

No reason for you to care one way or the other. Go back to sleep.

"Is it totally unreasonable for the universe to be inclined at some point to want to be able to rise up and take a look at itself..."

Yes.

"Unfortunately they (physicists) ignored the basic tenets of science..."

Funny how getting that Ph.D. makes you do things like that.

It is God that made us, not we ourselves.

So, who made God? Your arguments that the complexity of the universe requires a creator necessitates that the complexity of the creator also will require a creator, ad infinitum.

The problem of not having a creator is only a problem if you think that something was created.

"Only a problem if you think something was created..."

Unforunately, there's equal paradox otherwise.

One's "arguments that the complexity of the universe requires a creator" simply imply a gross ignorance of mathematics and a pathetic and inferior intellect.

The world of archeology is rocked by evidence of King David's palace unearthed in Jerusalem.

Unforunately, there's equal paradox otherwise.

Not if you're a Taoist, Buddhist, or Hindu. If it is the universe, not a creator, that is eternal, then what we call evolution would be it's changing self-perception.

If people are going to try to interject religion into science, then why limit ourselves to western "theist" religions only.

God created the world only 150 years ago. God made the world with all its history, science, etc. Everything was made in an instance because of God. There is no past. No millions of years.

God just made everything happen in an instant, just a 150 years. Maybe, just 50 years ago.

Our memories, God just made them. We think we were here. We think we actually lived before the moment.

Or...

Everything began with a bang - something out of nothing. It just happened with no beginning - it just is.

Of course there's a paradox otherwise, REDMAN. Can't imagine what began the beginning and can't imagine how everything just always was.

Frying pan or fire.

www.aish.com

INteresting link, corky

"It just is...."

That's how God named Himself: I AM THAT I AM. He might have been thinking of you. In fact, I'm sure He was.

The fact of the matter, I am willing to bet, is that the origin of reality is incomprehensible in terms of human psychology. Always and forever outside of science.

Can't imagine what began the beginning

Your assuming that there really was a beginning, as opposed to our perception of there being a beginning. Could the "big bang" be nothing more than a temporal event horizon beyond which we can have no knowledge?

"Order out of chaos...."

Yaas. But wherefore the chaos? That's the interesting question. And, while on the subject, better to be an inferior intellect than the world's smartest asshole.

That's philosophy, not science.

The fact of the matter, I am willing to bet, is that the origin of reality is incomprehensible in terms of human psychology. Always and forever outside of science.

That says it very well.

The fact of the matter, I am willing to bet, is that the origin of reality is incomprehensible in terms of human psychology. Always and forever outside of science.

Posted by Zed at 2009-10-01 10:35 PM | Reply

I would say it's real easy to comprehend the origins of reality especially when You exit the birthing shute and land squarely upon Your head. Now THAT is the origins of Reality.

Larry

I would say it's real easy to comprehend the origins of reality especially when You exit the birthing shute and land squarely upon Your head. Now THAT is the origins of Reality.

You lost me, Larry. What does this mean?

You lost me, Larry. What does this mean?

Posted by goatman at 2009-10-01 10:46 PM | Reply

Ever hear the condesending term When You were borned Your Mother dropped You on Your head and You haven't been right sense.

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained"

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God

Before the Big Bang there was the Big Crush, which is what happened to the universe prior to our current one, and is what will happen to our universe at some point. It is elegant, it's cyclical. It is anthropomorphism to think that existence must be linear.

Ya know?

Sometimes when you follow one of these threads for awhile, you can feel the IQ of the respondents kinda move in waves. The quality of the debate ebbs and flows.

And aside from #199, I'm feeling a biiiiig lowwwww

"It's elegant, it's cyclical...."

But, push comes to shove, explains nothing.

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained"

This seems obvious to me. I don't understand the need to twist it into some greater meaning. The application of of time and space to "before" just doesn't make sense to me.

"I don't understand the need to twist it into some greater meaning...."

The creation? Even if it's just the local creation? It has greater meaning intrinsically, especially if it's just a local creation.

It has greater meaning intrinsically

Nothing has "meaning" beyond what we give it.

"Nothing has meaning beyond what we give it...."

Always creating another road into Hell. Theoretically, the rest of us could change your status to dog shit and, from your own point of view, we'd have to be correct.

Nothing has "meaning" beyond what we give it.

So individual meaning doesn't actually exist; we manufacture it; we create it in order to live our daily lives.

If this is so, where do atheists come off criticizing theists for manufacturing a deity in order to give their lives meaning?

The only difference seems to be the locus for the fairy tale--in the heavens or in one's mind.

-The application of of time and space to "before" just doesn't make sense to me.

All we can do, really, is follow the science wherever it leads. The equations used in these astrophysical calculations show a singularity existing outside space/time fractions of a second prior to the BB.

And as far as I know, they could be incorrect, but they have no philosophical bias.

Ask any physics professor or chem teacher you cannot make any amino acid in solution in the chem lab that is not an equal mix of left and right isomers 50/50. They know it. I have a high degree after biology and I know this is never talked about.

What was that "high degree"? A GED? A blue ribbon from Oral Roberts?

Enantioselective and stereoselective reactions (the kind of reactions you use to get 1 isomer of a product) are used all of the time in synthetic chemistry. Enzymes are renowned for their selectivity. I've personally did several reactions involving asymmetric catalysis when I was working in a chemistry lab... so of anyone here, I am probably most qualified to call you out on your blatant bullshit.

Not only that, the sugars are all D-isomers all DNA is D isomer, this CANNOT happen on its own

Another blatant lie. The construction of macromolecules from a single enantiomer of a monomer is a "frozen accident" and evolution is the key to understanding it. Billions of years ago the last universal common ancestor made use of one set of isomers. Since enzymes are catalysts and are themselves constructed from optically active monomers, they tend to yield optically active products. Even before that point, self-replicating molecular systems and synthetic enzymes acted on only one isomer of a substrate and produced one isomer of a product.

And there will be no response on this, your Biochem Doc will ignore your questions.

Not a Doc yet... but I've spent enough time with my nose in a biochem textbook to know you're a fool up to his neck in horseshit.

Hi Grendel,

You might enjoy this

Hi Corky,

Thanks for the link. It is an interesting article.

Hmmmm, good. Then perhaps I could interest you in something completely different....

Speaking as a person with NO FAITH of any sort....

The anti-religious folks CONTINUE to argue with Popes who have been dead for centuries (and other long dead religious authorities)

(sadly, some religious folks still follow the PHYSICAL WORLD beliefs of those old Popes, which only helps to delude the anti-religious folks into believing that they are making a key point.....)

Religion has faired badly everytime it has tied dogma to "current" science.

KEY DETAIL:

The whole concept of "God" works just as well if the earth orbits the sun, or the sun orbits the earth. It works fine with a multi billion year old universe, and a 6000 year old one, it works with pure scientific evolution, and with intelligent design, or even outright creationism.....

EVERYTIME "SCIENCE" GETS DRAWN INTO DEBATE ON "GOD", REGARDLESS OF IF THE "SCIENCE" IS BEING USED TO SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF "GOD", OR TO KNOCK DOWN THE CONCEPT OF "GOD", WHOEVER IS USING "SCIENCE" TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION IS MAKING A FLAWED ARGUMENT.

Science is a tool for examining the physical space/time universe we live in. It is all that, and it is nothing more than that. A tool, a very very potent tool, for a specific use.

For some, Science IS "God". You are such a person if you believe science applies to 'all things'. Such people assume that if there is anything that science can't explain 'yet', it is only because of the limits of our current scientific instruments and theories, not due to a limit on science. This can also be described as "faith" in science.

Science is a very comforting tool. Its awesome power inspires trust, and in many cases such trust is WELL PLACED. Yet Science's most militant advocates are BLIND to themselves. They have adopted the WORST closed minded aspects of those they claim they want to "liberate" the world from.

There are plenty of very opened minded religious folks in the western world. The science minded folks could learn a thing or two from the religious folks on running an open minded and intellectually tolerant society.

And if a few decades out, the religious folks are being intolerant pushy bastards, I'll start telling THEM what they are doing.

For now, the ACLU just needs to stop having mental melt downs when a highschool football teams prays before a game.

Single cells haven't the capacity to store an amount of info equivalent to the Encyclopedia Britannica.... and any biologist really will tell you that.

Apples and oranges. A cell doesn't have to contain information about anything else but how to function. As we know without asking biologists, they do in fact contain that information.

Each base can be methylated or unmethylated.

I am under the understanding it is only cytidine that is methylated and even then only in localized CpG islands predominantly found in promoters.

#178 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE

The reason you don't understand why all life uses the same isomers is because you're stuck in your anti-evolution thinking whereby each organism was created de novo.

Evolution explains the phenomena you note quite easily-early life for some reason or another began utilizing only one isomer and that trait was then spread through all it's descendants.

ou can't reproduce it in the lab, L isomers cannot be made without R isomers in the lab
If you can do it 100% without one R being formed you would get nobel prize and become a billionaire.

Evolution cannot explain it unless you just don't understand the issue and think it can be explained.

Do it in the lab.

Then take a common protein of 100,000 amino acids aLL left isomers
then the next proteing and the next 1,000,000 proteins a second for one cell and do it for all the cells.
Then do it for every animal and plant

and thenfor every virus.

and then do the REVERSE for germs ???

Yes procaryotes use R isomers of proteins.

They arent in the link.makes no sense in evolutionary terms at all.

Evolution can't happen
didn't happen
and will never happen/

Not going to happen, ever.

Richard "apeshit" Rhine proves yet again that people that don't have a clue about science should not try to write about science.

Clueless fuck exposes his ignorance by letting us know that nobel prize winner become billionaires.

Then he gets even less coherent and idiotic by cut and pasting a bunch of bullshit he hasn't the faintest understand of.

This loser's entire science education probably consisted of lighting firecrackers behind the barn. I'll bet he is missing a few fingers, to boot.

Let's keep this simple and agree that some people like Richard definitely descended from apes. Ape shit travels downward when it release from the apes anus.

Richard "apeshit" Rhine proves yet again that people that don't have a clue about science should not try to write about science.

Clueless fuck exposes his ignorance by letting us know that nobel prize winner become billionaires.

Then he gets even less coherent and idiotic by cut and pasting a bunch of bullshit he hasn't the faintest understand of.

This loser's entire science education probably consisted of lighting firecrackers behind the barn. I'll bet he is missing a few fingers, to boot.

Let's keep this simple and agree that some people like Richard definitely descended from apes. Ape shit travels downward when it release from the apes anus.

#216 | Posted by axe at 2009-10-02 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Sick rtard hatemonger

Funny how getting that Ph.D. makes you do things like that.

It's funny how getting that Ph.D. also tends to give one greater insight and more knowledge on the given topic of study, often leading to a greater understanding of both strengths and weaknesses.

Has it crossed your know-it-all mind that many physicists may be unhappy with the BBT but absent contradictory evidence or an answer that better matches the data it's the model they work with, flaws and all?

What I find funnier is lay people pontificating on topics that they follow as a hobby as if they're on the same plane as those that eat breathe and drink it for their entire careers.

ou can't reproduce it in the lab, L isomers cannot be made without R isomers in the lab
If you can do it 100% without one R being formed you would get nobel prize and become a billionaire.
Evolution cannot explain it unless you just don't understand the issue and think it can be explained.
Do it in the lab.

Yes, a pure chemical synthesis will result in a mix. However, that is why organisms use enzymes to make a particular isomer. And yes, evolution explains it because if evolution were true, we'd expect life as we know it to use the same building blocks. Guess what, they do.

Then take a common protein of 100,000 amino acids aLL left isomers
then the next proteing and the next 1,000,000 proteins a second for one cell and do it for all the cells.
Then do it for every animal and plant
and thenfor every virus.

There is no "common" protein of 100,000 amino acids. There is NO protein of 100,000 amino acids. The largest is ~34K amino acids and is called titin.

Also, we don't exclusively use L-amino acids. We use them in proteins, but D-amino acids are found in humans and used for something.

There is no scientific for evidence for macroevidence. Darwin worshippers are too naive or purposely naive to believe that their god 'time' will create evolution.

4.4 million years is a ruse.

Atheists believe nothing created everything --- with the help of time.

"Has it crossed your know it all mind...."

That you are dead to satire? You bet.

Atheists believe nothing created everything

Yes, atheists believe the universe came from nothing.

Fundamentalists think god came from nothing

I can see and touch the universe. No evidence of god yet, though

Though slightly uncomfortable, if I have to choose something that came from out of nowhere, I'll stick with the tangible of the two

That you are dead to satire? You bet.

You are correct then in this case. I did not recognize it as satire.

Yes, atheists believe the universe came from nothing.

I thought Atheists believed that the universe always was.

That's OK---I was dinging a post from RAY above. No reason for you to understand what I was doing. I often revel in obscurity.

"Atheists beleive the universe came from nothing...."

Sounds vaguely, I don't know, religous. Strangely, saying it's always been here seems religous, too.

"Atheists beleive the universe came from nothing....""

Theists believe "God" came from nothing. Big deal.

I thought Atheists believed that the universe always was.

I should not have used that broad brush. Sorry.

Some atheists do. Some, as I, believe it has been around for ~14.7 gigayears

Christians believe God is eternal, of course, and is more real in a certain sense than what he created.

"Atheists beleive the universe came from nothing...."

Sounds vaguely, I don't know, religous. Strangely, saying it's always been here seems religous, too.

Because it is in many ways. It is something we are choosing to believe based on faith and only faith- faith in science, faith in religion, faith in our own abilities to tell truth.

"Faith in science..."

As far as I know there is no mechanism (aside from God) for something to come from absolutely nothing. Willing to be educated.

Define Atheist?

A lot of people here incorrectly consider it to mean Not A Christian.

I just want to make sure what you are talking about.

#231 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-02 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag: failed quantum mechanics

Happens all the time.

Sounds vaguely, I don't know, religous. Strangely, saying it's always been here seems religous, too.

But the difference between my "religion" and yours is that everyone, without exception, can see and touch the results of my religion. Only a select few claim to see and touch the results of yours

I think the prudent choice is to go with the more tangible of the two "religions"

"Happens all the time...."

Great. Show us. That will mean taking the risk of explaining it. Up for it?

(aside from God) for something to come from absolutely nothing.

So where did god come from? Uber-god? Super-god? The god factory?

"Everyone, without exception..."

Already you tread on thin ice. I have no idea what you see and touch is what I see and touch. By convention, we usually gloss over this simple truth, just so conversation can continue.

Because it is in many ways. It is something we are choosing to believe based on faith and only faith

You're being disingenuous if you really think science is on the same footing as religion when it comes to the level of faith required to accept it.

Confidence in the abilities of science is not based on faith, but on a long and proven track record of solving complex problem after complex problem.

I guess no one wants to explain to me where god came from

Happens all the time

"So where did God come from..."

Maybe He came from the same physical properties of the universe that bring reality out of absolute non-reality that ZATOICHI won't talk about because, as we all know, knowledge is dangerous.

You're being disingenuous if you really think science is on the same footing as religion when it comes to the level of faith required to accept it.

Not in the slightest. Prove where life came from for me with science. How about the exact age of the universe? How old is mankind? How do memories work? What is the function of dreams? What caused the Big Bang? Was there a Big Bang? What was before the Big Bang?

I have no idea what you see and touch is what I see and touch.

Bullshit. I see and touch the planet earth. And I know you do to.

If you want to play silly, topic dodging games, then I concede. you win.

Of course, given absolute lack of reality, there couldn't be physical properties in the universe. To make something from nothing, that is.

Only a select few claim to see and touch the results of yours

And even then usually in different ways.

I have no idea what you see and touch is what I see and touch.

At least within the context of the labels we assign things, you are touching the same thing. Otherwise relating experiences and duplicating actions we see and hear wouldn't occur.

Goat,

I can't tell you where the Sun came from or if G-d exists, so how can I say where he came from? I believe in G-d, I don't KNOW he is there.

Maybe He came from the same physical properties of the universe that bring reality out of absolute non-reality that ZATOICHI won't talk about because, as we all know, knowledge is dangerous.

Now we've come full circle. Everyone can see and touch the universe. Only a few select few think they see and touch god.

I'll go with the "everyone" option

"And I know you do, too..."

Nope. It's an assumption you make that seems to work well-enough most of the time. Until you really do meet someone who follows none of your assumptions.

IF reality is perception and everyone perceives things differently, then reality cannot be a constant

"At least in the context in which we assign labels to things..."

Getting real close here to agreeing with me. That's right, labels and values and conventions of thought are assigned.

"Then reality can't be a constant...."

Maybe it isn't, at least on a local level. That would help explain an awful lot.

A friend in college had this theory:

Life is a base
When you add acid to a base, you get a neutral
This means that LSD reveals how life really is.

"IF reality is perception and everyone perceives things differently, then reality cannot be a constant"

I think you mean, consciousness cannot be a constant.

I mean both things. Not to make things overly complex. Though I really think they are. Overly.

Not in the slightest. Prove where life came from for me with science. How about the exact age of the universe? How old is mankind? How do memories work? What is the function of dreams? What caused the Big Bang? Was there a Big Bang? What was before the Big Bang?

Exact age of the universe-nothing is ever exact. You're asking something that's implausible. Notice, however, that as we increase our knowledge of the universe we continually fine tune the range of error associated with our estimates.

Age of mankind-define mankind. If you consider the subject of this thread to be part of mankind, then at least 4.4 million years. Modern humans, ~200,000 years ago.

Memories-A lot of evidence suggests memory is associated with the localized protein production (called translation) in neuronal synapses.

"This means that LSD reveals how life really is."

It certainly reveals how complex consciousness and reality really are. It's the "red pill".

"This is the reason why dream are often surreal..."

I'd like to see the experimental design to prove that one. I like the idea dreams are more efficient in communication than we normally experience, and therfore have layered meanings.

Getting real close here to agreeing with me. That's right, labels and values and conventions of thought are assigned.

Of course they are. They have to be in order for thoughts to be expressed in a standardized manner to make communication possible.

However, if what you're saying is true, what you know as a keyboard should periodically behave differently than what I know as a keyboard. Insert any object you want for "keyboard" and it'll still be true.

If the realities we all perceive are really different, there'd be more variation in the behaviors of specific aspects of reality.

I think you mean, consciousness cannot be a constant.

Thank you, that works better.

I'd like to see the experimental design to prove that one.

It's psychology, so I'm sure it's pretty bad. (sarcasm)

I like the idea dreams are more efficient in communication than we normally experience, and therfore have layered meanings.

Where exactly do you get this from and what exactly do you mean?

Asking intriguing questions that science has no answer to does not make it faith based, just incomplete.

Your belief in those answers however is faith. Just last week, Lucy was the oldest and all guess were based around that. Now they have a new idea and all ideas are changing as a result. Science is an evolving faith, but a faith none the less.

It is Friday and I have been here far too long already. Have a great weekend.

"There'd be more variation of behaviors we see in respect to reality..."

I think most people don't pay attention to such variation, or punish it horribly when it does come to their attention.

The single thing that most astonishes me about people is how alien we are are to one another. Given these chasms, I sometimes think that communicating with genuine aliens will be a useless cause.

"Where exactly do you get this from..."

The idea goes back to the 19th Century. The fact seems to be that dreams talk to you, not just file things.

Try this one out---How many meanings does a doughnut have?

Do you mean a Christian Bagel?

"The fact seems to be that dreams talk to you, not just file things."

I don't think any psychoanalysts/psychologists would disagree with that.

Your belief in those answers however is faith. Just last week, Lucy was the oldest and all guess were based around that. Now they have a new idea and all ideas are changing as a result. Science is an evolving faith, but a faith none the less.

No it doesn't because I don't "believe" them.

I accept those answers with the expectation that they will change as new information is discovered. However, the discovery of that new information is brought about by the acceptance of those answers and the formation of hypotheses based on them.

You are right about science evolving, but it is not an evolving faith. It is an evolving state of knowledge.

JPW,
We seem to agree to disagree on this. To me, I see science and religion both as man's attempts to explain concepts and ideal far beyond his ability to understand them. There is only one truth and neither science nor religion has found it yet, so I view both as faiths. My personal faith is a scientific based faith with religion in that science explains the how and religion fills in the why.

And why and I STILL here....on a Friday?

I do know one thing that is real and cannot be argued: The King Crab legs I just got through eating for dinner on the rig were outstanding!

*burp*

MMMMM.....King Crab Legs.....unKosheriffic.

Anyway.

Ardi sure has big hands doesn't she?

My personal faith is a scientific based faith with religion in that science explains the how and religion fills in the why.
#268 | Posted by kanrei

There is no why. Existence exists. Period.
I can see when in a pre-scientific era, men would posit an invisible being to explain the forces of nature. Today there is no rational excuse for it.

Today there is no rational excuse for it.

#273 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-02 06:28 PM

Nor is there one for your stalking me every time I make that comment with your hate of anything faith related.

unKosheriffic.

I didn't know crab wasn't kosher. Why not? Even without the butter?

No shellfish or bottom feeders. Only birds that fly, fish that swim, and cloven animals that chew cud I believe.

And why and I STILL here....on a Friday?

#269 | Posted by kanrei

Soy un perdedor

DRIVE BY BODY PIERCING

j/k Kanrei.

"There is no why...."

And why is that, RAY?

But it is true Null. I have one window open playing MST3K in the background and I am here.

Ray believes things just are in nature, no why. I don't believe that. When a planet forms, something causes it IMHO. There is always a why, just not always an answer.

RAY, I've discovered, thinks the universe disolves into nihilism---Except for those one or two things he likes.

MST3K

Nothing wrong with that. I kinda like podcasts from Dopefiend.com. :)

Nor is there one for your stalking me every time I make that comment with your hate of anything faith related.
#274 | Posted by kanrei ]

Get off with the 'hate' bullshit. I'm just trying to do my part to bring sanity to this world. Or maybe it's to vent at the insanity of it all. Cause I know I won't accomplish anything else.

Netflix just added a bunch to their streaming

Get off with the 'hate' bullshit.

As soon as you get off the stalking bullshit. That is the third time I have posted something along those lines to have you magically appear in the thread to contradict me.

Ray believes things just are in nature, no why. I don't believe that. When a planet forms, something causes it IMHO. There is always a why, just not always an answer.

Because nature is self-organizing. Energy coalesces into forms that we recognize while chaos operates below the surface. This is studied in detail in the science of complexity and chaos. There is no need for the God hypothesis. More so, the God hypothesis tells us what we don't know about nature.

As soon as you get off the stalking bullshit. That is the third time I have posted something along those lines to have you magically appear in the thread to contradict me.
#288 | Posted by kanrei

Only three times? And you call that stalking? Nulli has been doing that to me for years. Now THAT'S staking!

This is a subject I enjoy. I was hoping you would be fun to debate with, but you're running away. I tried Zed, but he is incoherent.

We seem to agree to disagree on this. To me, I see science and religion both as man's attempts to explain concepts and ideal far beyond his ability to understand them. There is only one truth and neither science nor religion has found it yet, so I view both as faiths. My personal faith is a scientific based faith with religion in that science explains the how and religion fills in the why.

Fair enough.

Being an a-religious scientist I tend to be a little sensitive to comparing science to religion in regards to how much faith is required to accept science because there is no faith required, the evidence is there for everyone to see.

Because nature is self-organizing

Actually it tends towards disorder (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). There can, however, be localized ordering.

"As soon as you get off the stalking bullshit. "

Ray's been stalking me for years, Kanrei. No big deal.

Re: #288 and #290 - Jesus Christ, we need two more wambulances on this thread, stat!

Actually it tends towards disorder (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). There can, however, be localized ordering.

That's half the cycle. We see spontaneous self-organization all over the universe. Life would not exist if it were otherwise.

Again, this is covered in the science of complexity and chaos.

So, not only is there no missing link, there is a missing evolutionary trail.

And there was no western hemisphere before 1492. There was, however, a guy living in a whale and unicorns and dinosaurs on a sea cruise with Noah.

Will some darwinist please explain how "Lucy" was bale to reproduce without "Desi"?
Heather had two mommies even back then among secularists.

bale=able

"I tried ZED, but he is inchoherent..."

Translated: ZED won't bow down to my bullshit, no matter how inspired I think it is.

#298 | Posted by Zed

I come to this site because I like to debate. I can pick apart your illogic all day long just for fun, but it got to be a bore. All you do is return babble, non-sequitors and stupid comments like that one. Whatever your problem with reality is, I don't give a shit.

That's half the cycle. We see spontaneous self-organization all over the universe. Life would not exist if it were otherwise.

No kidding.

And no it's not half the cycle. Spontaneous self-organization requires energy input. Energy production increases entropy. Hence, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Again, this is covered in the science of complexity and chaos.

What "science" exactly?

And no it's not half the cycle. Spontaneous self-organization requires energy input. Energy production increases entropy. Hence, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

You forgot the first law: energy cannot be created or destroyed. The universe is rich with energy. Second, it is the exchange of energy from one form to another that creates entropy. The use of the word 'production' is misleading.

Another misunderstanding about the second law is that it applies to closed systems. The universe is not a closed system. As far as we know, the amount of energy in the universe is infinite, as is space and time.

"Another misunderstanding about the second law is that it applies to closed systems."

In equilibrium.

Find one.

Horrible? not...

While I don't agree with Ray a lot of the time he makes some really good points on the contradictions within the Bible.

"What your problem with reality is, I don't give a shit..."

If you didn't give a shit, you wouldn't waste even this much energy on me. Just saying.

"Reality..."

If your ideas describe the real, you can have reality, and welcome to it.

My response to your ideas, if I accepted them, would be to buy everyone a lifetime worth of beer. Because we'd all need to get royally drunk.

"No faith requied (for science)..."

Faith is indispensable to science. You're too close to the subject, as a scientist, to see that. Even intellectual fish swim in water.

Faith is counterproductive to science.

For an idiot like Zed to claim what is necessary for science is laughable.

"This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle. It was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure. And I do not want us to forget the importance of the struggle and, by default, to let the thing fall away. I feel a responsibility as a scientist who knows the great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, and the progress made possible by such a philosophy, progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings. If you know that you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the situation. I want to demand this freedom for future generations.

Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open question and an uncertain matter. I expect in the next lectures to discuss that very point and to try to demonstrate that it is important to doubt and that doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of very great value."

Richard Feynman
"The Meaning of It All", p. 28

Faith is indispensable to science.

Faith means belief without knowledge, the antithesis of science. Learn to distinguish the difference. You're trying to muddle science and religion as if science is an opposing faith as Christianity is to Judaism.

If your ideas describe the real, you can have reality, and welcome to it.

Finally, we agree on something. But they are not my ideas. Better minds than me have figured these things out.

We can go as far back as Aristotle with the Law of Identity and the Law of non-Contradiction, two laws which every tenet of theism violates.

Zed wonders when ZATOICHI will ever advance an argument that doesn't involve cutting and pasting someone else's work. Being a non-idiot and all.

As for the philosophy of science, and what's involved in that, I'll go toe-to-toe with you ZAT. What do you say?

"Better minds than me have figured these things out..."

I have never thought you a stupid man. Quite the reverse. But I wouldn't see those "better minds" as being superior to either of us. Just more depressing.

I'll stand by my statement, however. No faith, no science. Scientists just use euphemisms for faith. It helps them sleep at night.

#306

Actually Zed, I have to disagree with you.

Faith is based on one of our scenses....hearing.

IMO, if scientists can't see it, smell it, feel it or taste it...for the most part it doesn't exist then.

ZED once asked ZAT what Tycho Brahe did to his assistant in Denmark and why. It gets to the issue of faith in science.

I have never thought you a stupid man. Quite the reverse. But I wouldn't see those "better minds" as being superior to either of us. Just more depressing.

#311 | Posted by Zed

High IQ people are brilliant when they are right, and disastrous when they are wrong. IQ is not a measure of rationality. Neither are emotions.

"Neither are emotions..."

I've met people who use emotions in a manner as sophisticated and adaptive as thought. Shouldn't be surprising: they're there for a reason.

Gets to why rationality can be, in and of itself, a problem.

IMO, if scientists can't see it, smell it, feel it or taste it...for the most part it doesn't exist then.
#313 | Posted by Lisa

There is one qualification - until a thing can be proved to exist. Empiricism is not foolproof.

BTW, subjects like String Theory, Big Bang Theory and Black Holes do not have observational data. It's only a matter of time before they lose credence.

Gets to why rationality can be, in and of itself, a problem.

I find it a pleasant problem. I make fewer mistakes in life.

I've met people who use emotions in a manner as sophisticated and adaptive as thought.

For better or worse, emotions are an important factor in our thought processes.

Although science is a long way from being able to explain everything, it paints a pretty impressive picture of where we come from. Starting from a Big Bang and with matter contracting under gravity until they become stars, throwing off other matter that becomes planets, etc. Pure physics
Over time amino acids become self-replicating and evolve into various life-forms to fill different ecological niches. Pure chemistry
The point is, there is an unbroken chain of events that logically ends with us No supernatural being required
As a side note I think everyone that dismisses the gifts of science should give up everything in their life that science has afforded them.
If Atheism is a religion.
Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

"As a side note I think everyone that dismisses the gifts of science should give up everything in their life that science has afforded them."

They should sure stay the hell off radio, TV and the interwebs. And forget the printing press, too.

And no smallpox or polio vaccination, either.

4.4 Million years of evolution..... and Michelle Bachmann is still in Congress!!
......#26 | Posted by Corky

.....she has a prehensile grasp on her position.......

As a Christian I see it as God providing us with a brain and a natural curiousity. He told us it was important to use our talents.

So I see science as a good thing. Now there are some things science hasn't, and perhaps won't ever, be able to determine with certainty. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to explore, etc.

I think it's folly for those of faith to refuse medical treatment, for example. Just can't understand it, but that's their choice.

Faith is indispensable to science. You're too close to the subject, as a scientist, to see that.
.......#306 | Posted by Zed

.....Zed.....you should stop before you make yourself sound even stupider........

.....science is completely outside the realm of "faith" by its definition......

.....and then you have the audacity of ignorance to tell a scientist, what science requires to exist.......

.....you contradict yourself with each utterance........

As a Christian I see it as God providing us with a brain ....
.....#323 | Posted by OohRah

.....how He didn't give you one ?.......

.......was it an oversight, or did He just want to punish the Drudgers.?......

".....you contradict yourself with each utterance......."

"Must ... prop up ... strawman ..."
~Zed

Science is a process. Science is the sole reason we have this place to talk. Deal with it.

To paraphrase a famous old pre-internet retort:

You can lead a fundy to knowledge but you can't make it think.

"Science is the sole reason..."

1)Of course not.

"We have this place to talk...."

2) We could both live without it.

"Science is completely outside of faith by definition..."

As ZATOICHI stated, "Science is a process". If you'll stop and consider what makes that process go forward, you'll see what I mean.

"Science is the sole reason..."
1)Of course not.
"We have this place to talk...."
2) We could both live without it.
.......#328 | Posted by Zed

......I told you that you'd just look stupider........

....what do you think computers run on, faith or science ?.......

....and yes.....you and Zat could both live without computers, but you would not be talking to each other at this time......can't you even read ?...........

"Deal with it..."

You have your favorite toys: Teddy, Tin Soldier, and Jack-in-the-Box.

You've played with those same toys so long and so hard you sincerely think they are the only ones.

I'm not one to bitch as long as you're having fun. But that's a long way from being impressed.

Uhhh---Computers don't run on science.

"You would not be talking to each other at this time..."

Just a weird statement. How could you possibly know?

If you'll stop and consider what makes that process go forward, you'll see what I mean.
.....#329 | Posted by Zed

......I don't want to insult you....but really.....you do not have the intellectual capacity to follow the reasoning here.......

.......take care.......

Uhhh---Computers don't run on science.

#332 | Posted by Zed

.....stupider and stupider.......

This discussion has veered into your blind spot, SKIZZIKS. You can pretend you don't have one, but you could also pretend not to be human.

"Stupider and stupider...."

Can I get my mixer to run on science, SKIZZIKS? Think about what you're saying.

How about my wife? Does she run on science or something else?

"You do not have the intellectual capacity to follow the reasoning here...."

Interesting comment. That no one has yet applied that critique to you might give you a lesson in manners.

1) "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby..."

2) "No supernatural intervention required..."

The fellow that said #1 (you didn't make attribution), recently conceded in public debate that a supernatural intervention was required.

This concession doesn't keep him from making money off his alleged atheism, of course. Like a lot of folks, he counts on you not really keeping up with the things he says.

Said another way, he counts on you not to have intellectual capacity.

"The fellow that said #1 (you didn't make attribution), recently conceded in public debate that a supernatural intervention was required."

Irrelevant. One person can't disavow a sound statement, if he changes his mind. He doesn't own the principle.

#340 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-03 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag: ff for stupidity

"one person can't disavow a sound statement..."

He can sure disavow his own statements. If we shouldn't pay attention to him now, why should anyone have paid attention to him then?

"FF for stupidity..."

I've been thinking of assigning you one for elective mutism.

I always know what you mouth says but nothing ever about what you think. But come to think, this could be adaptive, especially at faculty parties.

The fellow that said #1 (you didn't make attribution), recently conceded in public debate that a supernatural intervention was required.

Who exactly is said fellow?

And I agree that even if the person who said it changed his mind, it doesn't mean the statement any less accurately describes his mindset when he said it.

With regards to faith and science, humor me and specifically list and or describe how faith is indispensable to science.

"It doesn't mean the statement any less accurately describes his mindset when he said it...."

The author of the first statement was Dr. Dawkins.

I assume his second statement, concdeing necessity of at least the Deistic God, also accurately described his mindset. But maybe votes on such things are possible.

"Humor me..."

All founding features of the scientific method are phliosophical assumptions. Can we agree this far?

" concdeing(sic) "

If you're going to keep trying to prop up your strawmen, at least be literate.

"What's a proton?"

"No one knows."

~Bryce De Witt

Freshman physics; I was there.

"Bryce Seligman DeWitt (January 8, 1923 September 23, 2004) was a theoretical physicist renowned for advancing gravity and field theories. He systematically approached the quantization of general relativity, in particular, developed canonical quantum gravity and manifestly covariant methods that use the heat kernel. B. DeWitt formulated the Wheeler-deWitt equation for the wavefunction of the Universe with John Archibald Wheeler and advanced the formulation of the Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. With his student Larry Smarr he originated the field of numerical relativity.

He received his bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees from Harvard University. His Ph.D. (1950) supervisor was Julian S. Schwinger. Afterwards he worked at the Institute for Advanced Study, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Texas at Austin. He was awarded the Dirac Prize in 1987, the American Physical Society's Einstein Prize in 2005, and was a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Letters.

"All founding features of the scientific method are phliosophical(sic) assumptions. Can we agree this far?"

No.

And learn to spell philosophical.

"All founding features of the scientific method are phliosophical(sic) assumptions. Can we agree this far?"

Holy fuck, what further than left field, cause this dude has both feet firmly planted there.

what's

And learn to spell philosophical.
#351 | Posted by Zatoichi

The Spelling Nazi strikes again.

All founding features of the scientific method are phliosophical(sic) assumptions. Can we agree this far?

Such as?

I'm asking you to explicitly spell out your position. No tit-for-tat banter. Explain how and why science is just as faith based as religion.

It is always fun seeing Ray defend illiteracy.

Ray defends insanity on a daily basis.

How's that $2K an ounce gold doing?

"Tit for tat banter...."

But it isn't. Start with the basics. Is there something called "Philosophy of Science" and what is meant by that exactly?

The first bit of #357 was copypasta'd from wiki btw.

But, the "science = faith" assertion DOES remind me of an episode of "Curb your Enthusiasm" where Larry is interacting with some fundy Christian type. I'm pretty sure it's the "Benadryl Brownie" episode.

In it, Richard Lewis' girlfriend has an allergic reaction to peanuts, and her face swells up ("it looks like blood and turnips!"). Her Christian sect doesn't believe in using medicine, so she and her mother instead decide to "pray" for a cure...

Some time later in the episode, Larry notices a TV repair guy in their home and mockingly asks why they don't pray for the TV to fix itself?

Obviously, funnier in the context of the actual show. But it raises a good point nonetheless.

Explain how and why science is just as faith based as religion.

He can't. You're wasting your time.

People like that let their lips flap in the breeze... but nothing worthwhile comes out of their mouths.

We'll start again with you, ZOMBIE---Is there something called "Philosophy of Science" and what exactly is meant by that?

You sometimes claim scientific training. You should be able to describe the foundation of the scientific method.

But if you can't, then why are you wasting your life doing what you purport to do?

Is there something called "Philosophy of Science" and what exactly is meant by that?

It's a broad category that you have already reached conclusions about. There is no point in discussing it with you.

You should be able to describe the foundation of the scientific method.

What of it? If you've got a problem with the scientific method, spell it out.

I've got no problem with the scientific method at all, ZOMBIE. What I'm trying to see is if some of you creatures really inhabit Planet Science at all. It would help explain why there is so seldom a meeting of the minds here.

I suppose it would be useless for me to ask if you know what Foundationalism is?

Let me help you further---"Foundationalism" applies to the notion of "suspension of disbelief"---Something ZARATHUSTRA thinks (unfathomably) is something owned by religion.

why are you wasting your life doing what you purport to do?

It may seem a wasted life to fools who believe that reality is best described by rambling fairy tales and anecdotes with the subjectivity of an acid trip. The expansion of knowledge (concerning things that actually exist, mind you) benefits humanity far more than any collection of myths. When you are lucky enough to be studying something that is truly fascinating to you, it's personally rewarding. Enough so that the days when all you manage to do is validate Murphy's Law don't suck too bad. That's why I'm wasting my life. It's probably why you're wasting your life with all of this Christianity business, too. You like it.

That gets back to the issue of meaning that you love so much, Zed. My life's work may be meaningless to you or any number of others. In fact, my life, your life, and everything else in the universe is "meaningless" in one sense of the word. All of these things just are... they do not fulfill some definite purpose.

My life means something to me because I am free to define and re-define its "meaning". Same with you... the meaning you define for your life just happens to involve some unseen entity that mine doesn't.

And now I've violated my own advice from #360... engaging in aimless banter with someone who perpetually refused to step up and make a point.

I've got to get back to wasting my life.

But it isn't. Start with the basics. Is there something called "Philosophy of Science" and what is meant by that exactly?

Yes it is. We've been through this argument several times and we never end up getting anywhere because we end up debating minute points brought up as tangents.

So yes, there such thing as Philosophy of Science. What I remember of it is essentially we never truly know anything, that everything we know scientifically is the best answer based on the information at hand.

So how does this require faith in your opinion? Spell it out. If I need clarification I will look something up or ask.

Zed "This concession doesn't keep him from making money off his alleged atheism, of course. Like a lot of folks, he counts on you not really keeping up with the things he says.
Said another way, he counts on you not to have intellectual capacity."

I don't need to have an intellectual pissing match with you, I would just add something I read somewhere (possibly Dawkins, maybe Sagan)...to paraphrase
Faith (belief without evidence) is required to believe in something positive. NOT to believe in something for which there is no evidence does not require faith. Does it require faith NOT to believe in the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, vampires, zombies or the flying spaghetti monster? Is the NON belief in alchemy a religion?

"If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT"
----Frank Zappa

Another gem from Zed
"Foundationalism" applies to the notion of "suspension of disbelief"-
It means nothing of the kind.
From Wiki
"Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs)."
Maybe your dazzling intelligence isn't as dazzling as you suppose.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
----Inigo Montoya----

You just never know where a Naval Aviator will go.
.....#350 | Posted by Zatoichi

.....I'm something of a Navel Aviator myself.......

Faith is based on one of our scenses....hearing.

#313 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-03 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: easy target for guys talking bullshit.

"scenses(sic)"

LOL

Foundationalism is a decision-rule that arbitrarily stops arguments of regression. That is, a convention that stops demands someone prove their proofs. A "common sense" trick of debate.

You should all be familiar with arguments of regression in regards to the Birther debate.

The point being made, foundationalism underpins the scientific method but is not, itself, science at all. It's a convention and a convenience, formed out of tradition and intuition.

As such, by definition it will allow error into any experiment. The hope is never too much. But since we are talking about hope in a very concrete sense, you begin to see how faith supports science.

"You keep using that word, I do not think you know what it means...."

You could have supported your reputation for honesty more fully by cutting and pasting something beyond what appeared to support your point.

"We never truly know anything..."

You can accept that as being correct (it is), but then not the corollary, that every bit of science requires someone's affirmation of faith?

It's not minutiae or a tangent. If ya'll just paid attention to your own beliefs you'd flail a lot less at the beliefs of others.

"My life's work may be meaningless..."

Never said anything like that, ZOMBIE. What I did say is you don't fully understand what you're doing and how . Your lack won't stand the way of your career. From what I can tell, few of your friends understand, either.

Look, I well understand that there's a PROCESS involved in science to accept something on faith. But it boils down to nothing more than how much error you want to accept in your findings.

It's just that it's a HUMAN process. It leaves science open to the same sort of critique levied at Christianity for having HUMANS translated the Bible in so many ways.

"I well understand"

#378 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-04 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't understand jack shit.

You can lead a moron to knowledge but you can't make it think.

"You can lead a moron to knowledge..."

Waiting to be led, O Great One. Do I really have to extend one more invitation?

Offer an argument, ZAT. The worst that can happen is someone will say you're wrong.

Zed

To carry your logic to its conclusion, you're arguing that all beliefs are founded on faith. You're trying to reconcile science with religion by redefining the meaning of faith. It's not selling.

No competent scientific thinker would argue that the scientific understanding of nature is complete. But the religious understanding of nature is completely contrary to what nature is. Natural forces are independent of supernatural influence. Moreover, to say that something not natural controls the natural is equivalent to saying nothing controls nature. I can take every concept you have of God and reduce it to an imaginary creature.

I tried to explain that to you last week, but all you did was respond with non-sequitors. We're just wasting our time hashing over this. You should spend more time on Christian sites and forget this one.

"Would argue that the scientific understand of nature is complete..."

You've missed my points entirely. I'm just pointing out some apparently poorly understood and arbitrary aspects of the scientific method.

It's that "arbitrary" part I focued upon. It's an undeniable fact of sceintific life, and represents institutionalized error.

Think of science as peanut butter. Scientists allow amount of insect parts in with the butter so they can continue to do business. I like science, I like peanut butter. Fine with me.

"I can take every concept of God you have and reduce it to an imaginary creature..."

Sure you can. I've more than once reduced your ideas to chimera as well. That you don't and have never seen that suggests your faith has always been more blinding than my own.

"All you did was respond with non-sequiturs...."

Only from your peculiar point of view. Children reason and imagine only uni-directionally.

If you put red then blue then white balls into a tube, wait a moment, then back the balls out the same direction they went in kids are always amazed that the sequence is now white-blue-red.

No, you aren't a child, RAY. But you have the same fixations of thought as a child might at times. Egocentrism projecting perceptions onto the larger universe is also a fault you indulge in.

You can accept that as being correct (it is), but then not the corollary, that every bit of science requires someone's affirmation of faith?

I guess I don't see it as faith. Every bit of information used by science is backed by more information which is backed by still more ect. To me, that give me confidence in that information to accept it in order to take the next step.

And to me, that is fundamentally different from religion faith.

It's not minutiae or a tangent.

It is to your ultimate point. I don't want to debate every point along the way, I want you to list all the points so we can debate as a whole (or individually if that's how it's going to be).

If ya'll just paid attention to your own beliefs you'd flail a lot less at the beliefs of others.

I don't consider science a belief. It's too strong a work with little flexibility.

And I also don't think I flail against others' beliefs. I only disagree with their usage in ways I view as inappropriate.

It's just that it's a HUMAN process. It leaves science open to the same sort of critique levied at Christianity for having HUMANS translated the Bible in so many ways.

Not at all.

Error in science usually causes results to be non-repeatable. Minimizing error allows for consistent repetition of results to determine whether or not what is being observed is real. There are then batteries of statistical tests to ensure that the trend observed is unlikely to be due to error. You then have the question of repetition by other labs as a final hurdle to an observation being widely accepted in a field.

As for an error in interpretation of the bible, a single word change could potentially dramatically change the overall meaning of a story.

"Error in science causes results to be non-repeatable...."

Error, especially if it's fundamental and systematic, can also cause error to be repeated.

That necessarily means erroneus results, though they have the apparent sanction of reproduceability, as well as false interpretations.

"Statistical tests to ensure that the trend obersved in unlikely to be to to error...."

Each with it's own confidence value. This discussion gets funnier as it becomes more arcane.

Keep propping up that strawman, Zed.
It's at almost as entertaining as watching paint dry.

"To me, that gives me confidence in the information..."

Why would you need to be confident? Who the hell are you? No being snotty here, but your very language describes a system of thought ultimately dependent upon subjectivity. Upon a feeling of comfort, no less.

That's the bear science likes to keep well in it's cave. "Science" is a construct. When you finally just come out and say what it is (obviously) a construct of I win this debate.

How does God come into this discussion? He's the only means ever put forward to get to truth beyond the minefield of what will forever be just ordinary human psychology. That's the psychology RAY thinks he doesn't share.

"It's almost as entertaining as watching paint dry...."

That's why you so often interject yourself. If you knew anything about OZ, by the way, you know Scarecrow eventually became ruler.

Sure you can. I've more than once reduced your ideas to chimera as well. That you don't and have never seen that suggests your faith has always been more blinding than my own.

ou've missed my points entirely. I'm just pointing out some apparently poorly understood and arbitrary aspects of the scientific method.

But you have the same fixations of thought as a child might at times. Egocentrism projecting perceptions onto the larger universe is also a fault you indulge in.

Warn me in advance, because I missed them. All I ever see from you is what I've been calling 'incoherent'. Grendel used to try that by claiming that 'mind' has no substance. But 'mind' does not refer to a thing; it's an action, a verb.

How does God come into this discussion? He's the only means ever put forward to get to truth beyond the minefield of what will forever be just ordinary human psychology. That's the psychology RAY thinks he doesn't share.

Without an objective reference, the concept of God can mean whatever you want it to mean. Psychology again.

"Without an objective reference...."

Which, of course, I have. Strangely, He wore human psychology for about thirty-three years.

"But mind doesn't refer to a thing..."

It refers to itself as a thing. You need to argue with it. Come to think, you do that all the time.

What Grendel was getting to is that some things are much more than the sum of their parts, described as verbs or not. That's absolutely non-scientific but also absolutely true.

Each with it's own confidence value. This discussion gets funnier as it becomes more arcane.

?

When you statistically analyze data sets, you get a confidence interval of that data set. There is no confidence value of the confidence value.

Why would you need to be confident? Who the hell are you? No being snotty here, but your very language describes a system of thought ultimately dependent upon subjectivity. Upon a feeling of comfort, no less.

How do you figure? Data is data. There is no subjectivity to it. Interpretations may change and that is in fact what we see, but the data remains the same regardless of who's looking at it.

And yes, you are being snotty. You refuse to actually spit out your actual position with any clarity (despite repeated requests) and are just playing question games while simultaneously declaring you win.

I have confidence in using the scientific method because I can touch, see and manipulate the results, results which are consistent from person to person upon repetition. I cannot touch or feel the object of your faith, an object you believe it based on your own personal experiences and nothing more.

That's the bear science likes to keep well in it's cave. "Science" is a construct. When you finally just come out and say what it is (obviously) a construct of I win this debate.

Well what is it then? Spit it out.

He's the only means ever put forward to get to truth beyond the minefield of what will forever be just ordinary human psychology.

No, it's a construct used to explain the unexplainable by much more primitive peoples thousands of years ago that has been clung to in present day. It's a construct that has nice little safety mechanisms like "He's all powerful" and "He's a mystery" so that when inconsistencies inevitably arise, the construct has the unassailable trump card. God means something totally different to each and every person who's belief is based on their own individual experiences or simply because that's what they were taught to do.

"Data is data. There is no subjectivity to it...."

Entirely untrue. Unless you'd like to postulate automatons (and those not designed by mere humans, mind you) are in charge of defining it, measuring it, and reporting it.

What I'm saying is that data is just something else that goes through the old neuropsychological meat-grinder.

Maybe you'd understand me better if I referenced Garbage In/Garbage Out.

#398 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-04 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Still propping up strawman.

Hey Zed, try not using transistors or the internet to post your bullshit.

"There is no confidence value to the confidence value..."

Didn't say there was. I believe I was telling you trends have error variances. I believe you were attempting to tell me something like data is sacred, somehow more objective than the minds comprehending and using it.

That is your position, is it not? If so, just weird.

" data is(sic) sacred"

Data are sacred, you illiterate shit.

What I say is the truth independent of transistors or the internet, ZAT. Moreover, it's the truth no matter who hears it. Truth is funny that way.

Ever designed an experiment, Zed asked as an aside?

"Data (the android) is sacred to the dwarf lizard race of Betelguese. No go tell your momma you need to wash out your mouth.

"Belief (in God) based on their own individual experiences...."

That annoys you? Too bad, "own individual experiences" is all you or I or even ZAT ever have. It's as much the basis of science as it is religion.

What odd people.

What I'm saying is that data is just something else that goes through the old neuropsychological meat-grinder.

But it's the same data that goes in. It's a different interpretation that comes out.

That doesn't change the data.

I believe I was telling you trends have error variances.

No kidding, hence the reason for using statistical analysis to determine if said variances were due to chance or error.

I believe you were attempting to tell me something like data is sacred, somehow more objective than the minds comprehending and using it.

Not at all. Data just is. When two people look at the same data, they don't see different data, they just reach different conclusions.

That is your position, is it not? If so, just weird.

No it's not my position.

What I say is the truth independent of transistors or the internet, ZAT. Moreover, it's the truth no matter who hears it. Truth is funny that way.

Of course it is.

That annoys you?

It doesn't annoy me the slightest bit. I have my own individual experiences that I consider spiritual, doesn't mean I expect anyone else to recognize them as such and therefore recognize my beliefs based on those experiences as some form of "truth."

Too bad, "own individual experiences" is all you or I or even ZAT ever have. It's as much the basis of science as it is religion.

Man you're reaching.

Published data is not a personal experience. It's the very same data everyone else sees and is put out there for them to interpret it in their own way.

Still getting my mind around the idea you can "touch" data. Perhaps you can smell it, also? What does it taste like? Ye gods. You don't even have the same concept of abstracton as I do.

"What I say is the truth independent of transistors or the internet, ZAT."

Then don't use them to post your bullshit, hypocrite.

"Put there for them to interpret in their own way..."

Almost there, buddy. So---Data isn't anything absolute?