251. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #184169 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Calilasseia,

If you are still around could you explain how/why the human jaw is getting smaller and some people are not developing wisdom teeth?
I asked this question elsewhere and I think I sort of have an answer but I am not sure and you seem to know what you are talking about on matters such as this.
I know our diets have changed and we no longer require big massive jaws with lots of teeth, but from where does the selection pressure come? Our genes don't 'know' we no longer need extra teeth and smaller jaws so how is this selected for?

252. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184164 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Comment #184153 by mordacious1

And what about parts of the world where there isn't access to dentists, are wisdom-toothless people higher than 35% because those with them died off or are not as attractive?

Actually the article I referred to said that about 99.8 percent of Bantu speaking people have wisdom teeth while no Mexican Indians do. I don't think dentistry has had any effect yet.
But I have wondered the same thing about eye-glasses. Certainly there would be selection pressure on people who couldn't see clearly.
However, from what I read (and learned from posters on this site) it seems as though genes are not as specific as we sometimes think. They can express themselves in various way depending on other genes and environmental factors. They also have many purposes. Poor eyesight or fewer teeth may be the result of some other selection factor.
It is a complicated process.

253. What is science for?

Comment #184157 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Al said:

If the Holocaust is a myth, hoax and fabrication, how come the only people to discover this have been bigots, discredited non-scholars, the mentally deranged, Islamic militants, and other assorted whackos?

I love it when people think like I do.

As is the case with that those who try to promote 'Intelligent Design' and claim that the 'Designer' (capitalized) could be anything at all -not necessarily God, the real truth is in the motivation. They will claim that they are motivated by freedom of intellectual thought. They claim that there are alternate views on the evidence which make more sense; that point to an 'Intelligent Designer'. It could be an alien they claim.
But we know that is not the truth.
They have an ulterior motive. The Intelligent Designer is none other than Bible-God.
I had this discussion over 25 years ago with a creationist who was arguing that 'creation science' should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. He brought out all sorts of alternate explanations for things like the fossil record. The main thrust of his argument was the 'science' behind the creationist world view.
In the end I asked what was his goal; what was his motivation?
He believed in Bible-God and wanted the Good News spread on campus.
It wasn't about science, it was about god.
I cannot believe (argument from personal incredulity) that ASM's motivation is 'historical accuracy'.
He hates Jews just as surely as the Intelligent Design/creationist loves god.
That's the motivation.

254. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184146 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Thanks jo5ef.
I did a bit of poking around and it seems you are perhaps partially correct. There seems to be a lot more involved if I understand this article correctly:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1458632

Which I am not sure I do entirely. I ain't no scientist but I think I got the gist of the paper.

Here is a relevant excerpt:

A reduced number of molars may be advantageous from a human evolutionary perspective. Because of the dramatic lifestyle and diet shift experienced since the discovery of fire and the development of cooking utensils, third molars, which could have been essential for the survival of earlier hominids, became not only functionless but also an important cause of morbidity for modern humans (54). Dental arches have been reduced over hominid evolution (2â€"4, 56). As a result, third molars became frequently impacted or malpositioned, preventing the teeth from attaining a functional position. Furthermore, because of the difficulty of cleaning them and keeping them free of disease, impacted or malpositioned third molars lead to a higher susceptibility to periodontal disease, such as infections, carious lesions, cysts, tumors, and destruction of adjacent teeth and bone

255. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184080 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Thank you Almighty Quetzacoatl.
Now further demonstrate your omniscience and answer my question on the other thread.

256. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184079 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Okay. I will try again:

Can someone answer my question here:

CLICK HERE

257. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184067 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #184053 by moderndaythomas

Our health no longer depends on the presence of large cheek teeth, so when the mutations occur and the teeth don't come, it otherwise goes unnoticed. And nature doesn't purge use from the population. In fact, the less teeth that we have in our skull translates to fewer cavities and abscesses

Is it one gene that is responsible for the formation of wisdom teeth? Do other mutations occur that cause other teeth (canine, for example)to not form?
Is there anyone who can seriously answer my question? (Thanks steveroot:)
Is it still the case that more absesses and cavities would lead to less reproductive success?
Are there now different selection mechanisms going on in societies that have dental care?
I don't think I am wrong to believe that reproductive success is the mechanism by which evolution works.
I can't see how a genetic mutation that causes a lack of wisdom teeth can be a factor in reproductive success.
If I have wisdom teeth am I less likely to reproduce? It could be the case, I suppose, but has there ever been any studies to determine whether or not this is true?
Evolution is blind (not intelligent). It does not 'know' that we no longer need wisdom teeth. According to the Theory of Evolution it is only through mutations that lead to offspring producing more offspring that those mutations survive and slowly change the structure of the organism.

Can someone explain this to me or was Ben Stein right?

258. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184035 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Humans are a dynamic system, no ideology is.

I like this.
It fits in nicely with how I think.
Life is funny.
(Funny strange or funny ha ha? Yes).
Ideologies arouse passions; without which we would lose some of humanity's great achievements. We would also lose some of our greatest atrocities.
Can we be passionate about the ideology of dynamic systems?

259. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184031 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

He suggests that when the body size of mammals reduces rapidly their jaws become too small to house all their teeth, and overcrowding eventually results in selection for fewer or smaller teeth (International Congress Series, vol 1296, p 74). This seems to be happening in Homo sapiens.

I don't understand how this is happening.
Am I less likely to reproduce because I have wisdom teeth? Are homo sapiens with wisdom teeth generally less likely to reproduce because they have wisdom teeth?
If that is not the case (and I don't see how wisdom teeth or lack thereof would influence reproductive success) then what is the mechanism that is causing homo sapiens to evolve in this direction?

260. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183913 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 7:18 am

Comment #183883 by phatbat

Every one should just ignore his posts from now on.

I prefer to treat his posts with the respect and dignity they deserve.

261. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #183895 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 5:58 am

Comment #183889 by lol mahmood

Yes. Cool bit of atheist fundy LOGIC.

Actually there is a theory that Judas, being reviled through history, is actually the Word of God, paying the ultimate sacrifice by suffering for our sins through eternity. If that is the case then Judas equals the Word equals God. If Atheists are Judas then Atheists are God.
It may seem paradoxical but that is one of the cornerstones of 'true' theology.

Now how's that for LOGIC?

EDIT: I would like to put a little 'TM' by the word LOGIC, paying tribute to its creator: clearwooter.

262. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183776 by Frankus1122 on May 22, 2008 at 7:41 pm

clearmind,
Your posts have a strange effect on me.
I'm not sure I should post this so openly but....
I think I love you.
Are you married?
Do you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend?
Could you post a picture of your LOGIC brain atop a camel?

263. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183718 by Frankus1122 on May 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Comment #183678 by Tezcatlipoca:

So now you know what to call a group of three or more Librarians. Ha-ha-ha.

Can you say "PARTY!"?

Here is an educational video on the March of the Librarians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td922l0NoDQ

264. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183660 by Frankus1122 on May 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Al,





I attended a talk by Andrew Kean at a Librarian conference in February.
Here is an exerpt from the session description:

Thanks to the democratization of the Internet and what is now known as Web 2.0,anyone with a computer is given equal footing and the ability to be heard. In today's self-broadcasting world, if you have an opinion, you can publish a blog, post a video on YouTube, or alter an entry on Wikipedia. But is this really such a good thing? Our "cut and paste" on-line culture in which intellectual property is freely swapped, downloaded, remashed, and aggregated, threatens over 200 years of copyright protection and intellectual property rights, robbing artists, authors, journalists, musicians, editors, and producers of the fruits of their creative labours. The Cult of the Amateur shows us how the anonymity that Web 2.0 offers calls into question the reliability of the information. Unconstrained by professional standards, editorial filters, or at the very least, traditional libel laws, anonymous bloggers and videographers can manipulate public opinion and pass off biased opinion as facts. The distinction between expert and amateur, author and audience becomes blurred and the results can be devastating.

I thought he was a bit of an asshole. He derided the people who posted to wikipedia. The woman sitting behind me said her son had posted more articles than anyone to wikipedia. She went on to say how much work he put into researching the articles to make sure they were the best they could be.
Kean said he was a sucker for creating free content.

All of the other presenters at the 3 day conference who spoke about the topic of user-created content on the Web were of a differing opinion.
I believe I read somewhere that misinformation on wikipedia does not last long.
(The preceeding sentence is an example of the kind of thing which could be a problem: some half-remembered 'fact' becomes 'carved-in-stone' truth. Or does it?)

Like I said and you iterated: it has its useful purpose; it's knowing what that is and what to look out for that is critical.

265. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183652 by Frankus1122 on May 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Can't bring myself to care about the greek but as to wikipedia:
How many print based encyclopedia have warnings as to neutrality, and quality of writing, and the need for citations, etc.?
It has its flaws but there are also distinct advantages to it.

266. In God's Name

Comment #183565 by Frankus1122 on May 22, 2008 at 9:21 am

Comment #183543 by mjauzedog

My position is that whether it is an independent school or not, children should not be taught any religious and pseudoscientific claims as alternative scientific theories. If creationism/ID was taught in biology class, the school should be shut down quicker then a fundamentalist Christian gets down on his knees and starts pleasing Jesus ;)

I just finished watching the whole show.
My concern is for society at large.
It is not an issue that is nuetral when parts of the society is being taught things that are demonstrably false. People walking around believing that the world is 4000 to 10000 years old and that God hates fags and Muslims is detrimental to society.
I don't know. I don't want to curtail freedom of thought but you shouldn't be allowed to teach children bullshit like the above mentioned.
In Ontario we don't allow smoking in public buildings. We have to wear seatbelts when driving. These are impositions on my personal freedom that I am okay with because I live in a society. There are benefits to society because of these laws.
The belief that homosexuality is a sin can lead to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is also against the law here and elsewhere.
What the hell am I talking about?
Like I said earlier: I don't know.
But it bugs me.

Frankus the grumpy old man.

267. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183540 by Frankus1122 on May 22, 2008 at 8:39 am

If our sun was unique or 'special' that would prove that God created it just for us.

Whew! That was a close one for us atheists.

268. In God's Name

Comment #183285 by Frankus1122 on May 21, 2008 at 6:35 pm

From GregPhillips
To DavidJSA

Thanks for your excellent posts.

ditto

Oh and I seem to have gotten more than my fair share of birdshit on me over the years

ditto

I have been shat upon at least a half a dozen times. Maybe because I hang out outside a lot.
Or god doesn't like me.
Or seagulls don't like me.
Or shit just happens.

But why on my head? :(

269. Philippe Starck: Why design?

Comment #182651 by Frankus1122 on May 20, 2008 at 6:43 pm

I was commenting on another thread about the importance of design. Bruce Mau had a Massive Change exhibit at the Art Gallery of Ontario a couple of years ago.
There were some interesting ideas generated which I am still thinking about.
For example I think cars are terrible. I drive one but I am not happy about it. I would like a form of transportation that was not so bad in almost every way I can think of. I know about bikes but they have certain limitations.
For more on Massive Change:
http://www.massivechange.com/

270. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180796 by Frankus1122 on May 15, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Comment #180793 by Caudimordax

Is it okay if I call you Frankus instead of Frankus1122?

Yes. And thanks.
The '1122' comes from trying to be consistent with login names. 'Frankus' was taken on other sites with which I registered before this one.
The '1122' comes from an old hippie I knew who told me: "Eleven and twenty-two are POWER NUMBERS, man!"
It's always kind of stuck in my head.
And because numerology is one of the one pure sciences I thought I would go with those two powerful numbers.



BTW: for those who cannot hear my sarcastic tone through the keyboard: not serious about numerology.

271. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180790 by Frankus1122 on May 15, 2008 at 7:59 pm

txpiper,
Reading over the last few pages of posts I was struck by the fact that most of the people responding to you seem to be aware of what you know but you are not aware of what they know.
In short, they know more than you.
When you argue from personal incredulity or provide flawed statistical analysis you are betraying your ignorance.
Many have suggested that you really try to understand how evolution actually works by reading a book or two.
Try it. What have you got to lose?
Time and time again you try to put forth 'evidence' which is easily debunked. I feel a bit embarrassed for you.
It is like trying to explain to a 4 year old why eating only ice cream is not good for your health. Your arguments are just not on buddy.
Get an understanding of how evolution works.
Right now you have a good MISunderstanding of how evolution works.
Knowledge is not a sin.

272. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180686 by Frankus1122 on May 15, 2008 at 2:49 pm

al-rawandi

What about the rest of Saudi Arabia's potential oil fields. Which have not even been explored yet? You are certainly only talking about currently discovered oil fields.

I could be wrong here but I think the idea is that we have gone past the half way point. There are more oil deposits but they are not the readily available ones. You have stuff like the Alberta tar sands - not the easiest stuff to extract. It will become increasingly more difficult and expensive to get the oil we need.
It is not that there is no oil left but rather the oil that is left will be subject to the law of diminishing returns.
I think that's right. If not the big T will set us straight.

273. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180222 by Frankus1122 on May 14, 2008 at 11:49 am

Comment #180199 by Colwyn Abernathy

a "heroic dose"...5 dried grams.... ;)

Did you think that everyone knew what you were thinking?
Did someone come up to you and tell you that you were so high that you thought everyone knew what you were thinking even though you had not spoken that thought out loud, thereby proving to you that in fact people were reading your mind?

Just curious.

274. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180135 by Frankus1122 on May 14, 2008 at 8:58 am

All the talk of sending nuclear waste into space is interesting but once again, to be selfish, what about getting uranium out of the ground?
I do not want a uranium mine in my backyard.
You are talking about spent fuel, but what about the waste from the actual mining of uranium?

http://know-uranium.org/

Another link with some non-industry funded information.

It is revealing to me how much less trusting I am of 'official' reports on the safety of uranium mining when it is happening in my backyard.
I have also witnessed the behaviour of the mining company involved in the dispute in Eastern Ontario. It is like a weird caricature of evil corporate bad guys. The owner of the mining company not only looks like Mr. Burns but acts like him as well.
There is a lot of opposition to nuclear/uranium, not all of which is completely unfounded.
But again, I am a bit too close to the situation to be completely objective.

http://www.ccamu.ca/

275. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180036 by Frankus1122 on May 14, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #180020 by Dr Benway

If we simply designed them with the door on top, we'd save an enormous amount of energy.

I think design is the key issue. Cars are horribly designed. As are refrigerators and homes and the way we buy and produce groceries and other products.
I believe if more effort was put into redesigning our world with energy efficiency in mind we would be far better off.

The 100 mpg automoblie X Prize may be the kind of push we need. If it were extended to other areas...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261425.html?series=19

276. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180028 by Frankus1122 on May 14, 2008 at 6:01 am

So religion is for the weak and the ignorant?

Yes.

277. God seekers go public

Comment #179830 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 8:40 pm

Dr. Benway,
You just reminded me of the perpetual motion machine highlighted on this site not too long ago.
There is discussion and general hand wringing about our energy future on the 'Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol' thread.
I wonder how that magic energy generator is coming along.

278. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179759 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 4:31 pm

BTW aren't we missing a post from a giant bird?
This article seems right up his alley.
And the post could almost be relevant.

279. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179752 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Barry Pearson :

What is that 40% about? Is it what the article here is talking about?

Probably.
Someone asked me if I believe in God.
I replied, "No. I don't believe in any sort of magic at all."
He said, "What about a higher spiritual power?"
Me: "Was I unclear?"


Is there stuff that we don't know about in the vast universe?
Probably.
Is the unknown stuff a 'higher power'?
There could be beings with powers beyond ours, but they would be part of the natural universe.

There may even be 'spirit' in the universe. It could be the case that beings have existence in some other dimensions that transcend our space-time existence. Being beings that inhabit dimensions beyond ours they would not interact with our space-time and therefore we could call them 'spirits'. To interact with them would require us to somehow get out of our space-time and make contact with other dimensions.
All this could be.
Maybe.
There is just no evidence for it whatsoever.
I am not even sure how you would try to discover whether or not 'spirit' existed.
If the 'higher powers' are immaterial then they cannot by definition interact with us. If they are part of the material universe then okay. They would just be something that is yet to be discovered and understood.
I like science fiction.
It has lead to some real science.
But until the flights of the imagination do have real science behind them I wouldn't base my life on a fantasy.

280. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179706 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Shaden and annabanana check out the "Nuclear" link on the above mentioned site.
The article entitled
'Why Nuclear Is Not Healthy for Human or Other Life'
is an interesting counter-point to the WIRED article.
A lot of what is on the CCAMU site is very hippie. However, I don't think the facts they produce are made up. Perhaps they aren't balanced but what do you use to balance radioactive spills and birth defects?

281. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179694 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 2:09 pm

And what should we do with all of the waste created by nuclear power? We're running out of places to put it as it is. Until there's a more viable method of disposing of or decontaminating all of the waste, nuclear isn't the best option, either.

I have to agree because of personal reasons. A mining company wants to open a uranium mining site and processing plant in my backyard. Literally.
The past record of mining sites and processing plants, as far as I can determmine, is horrible. Has there been a tailing pond for processed uranium that has not leaked? Ever?
Long term storage of waste is a big big problem that needs to be solved before we plunge headlong into a situation that could be around for centuries.
Here is a link to a site outlining my personal problems:

http://www.ccamu.ca/

The history link provides details. I am one of the 'settlers' trying to block the mining of uranium in my backyard.

282. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179665 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm

The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

Oh does it really?

I think the answer is yes. The mind does SEEM to merge with a larger presence that feels more real. This is something that many people experience. But again, I think there is an answer for this feeling in what the brain (physical) is doing.
Am I missing something?

283. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179659 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm

I know, it seems like the author is very confused about what he thinks.

Yes, the point was a bit muddled. I think some people are reading more this than what is there.
Is he not saying that the brain is responsible for 'mystical' experiences?
Perhaps it is because I am a 'hard core materialist' that I don't have a problem with what he is saying. If he is saying what I think he is.

God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

Or what we call God is, in fact, a brain state. I'm okay with that. I think I am in touch with the universe because I have a wave of firings across my brain. Cool.
I think that is what happened to that brain scientist who had a stroke and got all mystical and 'connected' as a result. It was a TED talk I linked to before.
I don't think there is a problem saying we get weird connected feelings of oneness when our brains fire off in certain ways.

Or is he saying something else and I just can't see it because of my 'materialist-lens'?

284. God seekers go public

Comment #179563 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 11:55 am

Diacanu writes:

I think your average christians do beleive it on the outer layer of their brains, but have doubt past that, and I think even fanatics have that doubt at their core.

I agree. I think there has to be some doubt because every single thing in the world that they experience on a daily basis supports a materialistic /non-spiritual world.
There is just no evidence of spirit or divine intervention.
No sane person has ever heard the voice of God talk to them.
No sane person has ever talked to the dead or experienced anything of an afterlife.
People who experience 'miracles' at revival/Benny Hinn type sessions are faking it or undergo psychosomatic healings.
No one experiences God intervening in their life.
Because of this there is the doubt. It is necessary. There can be strong urges to create made up 'experiences', but they know it is not real.

The evidence from the sciences is so overwhelming by comparison to the made up stuff that there must necessarily be doubt.

Leave the bubble.

285. God seekers go public

Comment #179423 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 8:30 am

Do they think that real scientists won't shred any weaker evidence in seconds?

This is what I can't understand. There seems to be no realistic self-reflection or critical analysis. All critical evaluation seems to be done through a 'design-coloured lens'.
Looking at the world in this way leads to the conclusions that they come to. Or is it the case that the conclusions preceed the investigations?
That is, of course, the problem.
I don't understand why it is that they can't see this about themselves.

286. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178972 by Frankus1122 on May 12, 2008 at 10:25 am

was it supposed to be serious?

Maybe you were talking about me.
Sorry I may have pulled a Maurice Bialowas, you know what I mean?

Of course not.

Maurice was a guy I used to work with who seemed to think everyone was in on his private conversations with himself. So he would say things like, "Thursday is okay?" and "The music was so beautiful."
No one had any idea what he was talking about.
He would neglect to mention that he was thinking of a scheduling a meeting on Thursday, and that he had gone to a concert the night before.

Sometimes I think people can hear my voice through the keyboard and know what I am thinking.
When I suggested that txpiper was onto something I meant the opposite.

And if it was not you people in my head then who is having that conversation up there without me? Keep it down!


BTW: joking again.

287. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178958 by Frankus1122 on May 12, 2008 at 10:07 am

Was that a joke? Actually I know it was a joke to me but was it supposed to be serious?

It's from The Onion.
Not serious.

288. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178948 by Frankus1122 on May 12, 2008 at 9:42 am

If anyone needs any more proof txpiper is not here to seriously discuss evolution then check out his posts here: http://www.christianinformant.com/index.php?board=12.0

I read some of his other postings. And hence my point about the futility of trying to use reasoned argument and evidence and proofs to convince this person.
He needs to leave the bubble in order to hear. Right now, because he is in the bubble, all he hears is Charlie Brown's teacher: "Mwah mwaah mwhamm wah mwhaah."

A paradigm shift is required

289. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178941 by Frankus1122 on May 12, 2008 at 9:15 am

The point is the tax exempt status has allowed U.S. churches to become, in some cases, enormously profitable.

I have often thought of establishing my own religion. I figure I could make up anything at all and claim divine revalation. Has anyone in the Church of the FSM formally registered for tax-exempt status?
Does anyone know why this would not work?

290. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178929 by Frankus1122 on May 12, 2008 at 8:36 am

Evidence of 'young' fossils:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604

Maybe txpiper is onto something.

291. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178634 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm

I have a brother who is working for his Deacon title and he admits that even he has been told that when a personal opinion differs from church doctrine, he must always yield to church doctrine because that is the right answer (and policy).

An excellent policy. Who does your brother think he is to challenge the wisdom of centuries of theological thought? What arrogance!
It is reasonable to bow before the accumulated wisdom of the church.
It is also reasonable to expect satisfactory answers to questions that might arise. The accumulated wisdom should lead to reasonable answers.

Alas, it is not so.

It is hard to get a solid answer to a question about something that is completely made up.
Theologians come to conclusions about non-existent things. "How many angels can dance o the head of a pin' indeed!

292. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178628 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Diacanu,
I love your little dramatizations.

Arty should be aware that he loses old Beelzebub as well as Jesus.

Jesus may be nice and robey and sandaly and have really nice flowing long hair and all, but the devil is red and pointy and smelly and really mean.

And he can still have all the good Jesus stuff. You can be a good guy -all peaceful and loving and what-not if you want to. But you don't have all the hell-fire and guilt.

It really is very nice outside the bubble.

293. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178615 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Yeah, I do put a lot of confidence in common sense


Bwahahahahaaa!!

Noah's Ark?



Bwahahahahaaa!!

294. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178614 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Laughing boy, you already look like a prat.

I'll let anyone who is following the exchange decide if that is the case.

Show of hands readers.

Txpiper, you lost at the Flood thing.

You need to step back for a moment and ask yourself, "What if I am wrong?"
I know you are committed to your beliefs. I think because of this your good sense is being clouded. Every point you have tried to make has been answered. Doesn't Calilasseia's post, where s/he (?) indicates that thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers are published yearly that contradict your beliefs, say anything to you?
I think I know your response.
It probably has something to do with secular scientists following the herd, not looking at evidence in a fresh, non-Darwinian manner. They don't see the holes that are glaring at them if they see the evidence through your eyes.
When the Rev. asks what your alternative is, it is relevant. You see errors where none exist because of your creationist/intelligent design viewpoint. You do not want to accept ToE because it does not need God.

As Quine pointed out ToE is an extremely robust theory. It explains; it predicts; it works.

I can appreciate you fighting for something that you believe in. You need to be honest with yourself.
It may be a bit scary. But try to step outside your belief system and look at it with honest eyes. Look at the enormous mound of evidence against you. Thousands upon thousands of scientists in a wide variety of fields, over decades, discovering evidence all pointing to the same conclusions.
And then you have the story of Noah's Ark from the Bible. A story about a man with a large boat and two of every animal on the planet on board.
The only way that that could be true is if God did it. You need magical intervention.
And yet you are trying to convince with reasoned argument.

If you want to hold onto our beliefs that the stories in the Bible are true that is fine. Just don't try to enter the realm of reasoned rational thought.

Try my little thought experiment: step outside your bubble.
God does not have you in the palm of his hand; you are on your own. But there are other people out here. They are not so bad. Many of them are very good people who do good things because they want to.
The world is not such a bad place. You don't have to be afraid.

295. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178574 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Arty,
Try listening to this podcast:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/marc_hauser_moral_minds/

Here is an introduction:

In this interview with D.J. Grothe, Marc Hauser expounds his theory that morality has biological origins while challenging the common view that morality comes from God. He compares the human capacity for morality with Noam Chomsky's notion of a universal grammar, arguing that there is a "morality module" in the brain. He explains how his theory accounts for differences in morality across cultures, and discusses how morality could have evolved and what genetic benefit it might have afforded. He also explores the implications of his theory for the legal system, and for cultural institutions like religion and the family.

296. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178570 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:56 pm

"Naruredidit, just wait and see". "Nature of the gaps".

Nice analogy except that 'Nature' DOES provide explanations all the time. Our knowledge and understanding of he world is increasing daily because of the natural explanations of science.
'Nature' IS replacing 'godddiit' and the god of the gaps.
The need for God as an explanation is increasingly diminishing because answers ARE provided by science.

297. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178565 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Dr. Benway and Cartomancer,
I just want to take this opportunity to say I love you guys.
By guys I mean people, and by love I mean I like.
I am afraid that your brilliance may be lost on Arty and his ilk, but the genius of your subtle wit is greatly appreciated by me.

298. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178550 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Dr. Benway says:

There you have it, folks. No answer to the question: "How does one know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphoric?"

But AD has said:

Comment #148107 by Artful_Dodger on March 22, 2008 at 5:11 am

Re "metaphorical" v "Literal" and the difference between the two, one knows by being familiar with the genre, and by not mistaking one genre for another. The book of Job does not read like history, it reads like epic poetry. Anyone who is familiar with epic poetry will be guarded against the danger (a minor danger mind you) of taking it as a historical biographical account of the life of a man called Job.

The books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Esther read like history - and the events can be substantiated in many cases by reference to contemporary Mesopotamian (for example) historiography.

So, there you have it.
You know which parts are metaphorical because they look metaphorical and the parts which don't seem metaphorical are not.
That is his answer.
Perfectly simple.


Swing and a miss!

299. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178300 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 5:50 am

lozzer:

It's like the fall of the Magesterium in Phillip Pullmans Golden Compass series :D

Good one.

300. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178128 by Frankus1122 on May 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Ok, I think it's clear there's no answer coming here today

You are a joke.
You will be treated as such by me in all future encounters.

You say the above after accusing Diacanu of

avoidance techniques

.

I tell you that you have avoided answering questions and direct you to the questions I have asked that where left unanswered.
Your reply is sorry.
Then rather than answer the questions you ask me a question. I am going to suggest that this is an avoidance technique.
I reply to your question with a request that you answer my questions first.
Then you say you have to go.
I wish I had the skill of the Rev. to point out your deception in all its pink nakedness.
However, I think that anyone who reads this will see you for what you are: an obstinant, obtuse, obfuscating, obdurate mooncalf.
And a coward.