"Darwin Day" Topic

Testing the hypothesis that theres a 1500 post limit

Edit – seems to be disproved :)

Doug, your excellent example of a pencil argues my point for me.

Cheers to all of us for 1500+ posts. Some was exasperating, but most was exhilarating.

Here is an interesting article. Whilest it doesn't answer Doug's question of the First Cause it does through some interesting light on the origin of life. Sorry it comes from a newpaper rather than a scientific paper but it's a starting point for further digging:

link

Here's the precis of the original article.

link

Ralph

Looking for the First Cause is pointless. Because one can never answer the litany of, "Oh ya? Well what caused that?" You end up with Goddit, the , or whatever Doug is calling it this week.

But you can't ask the theologians what caused the First Cause. They'll say some version of the "Unmoved Mover". It all comes down to special pleading. No advances have been done on this argument since the Middle Ages.

Ralph

That's because even by the middle ages "there is nothing new under the sun, all is uselessness!" Our sapience had already posited all the possible "explanations" for Existence in the first place: and the result was "the big chief in the sky", the removed alpha male of the tribe to an unreachable place, so that the extant (empirical) males no longer had to fight to establish who was alpha. The BC became the ONE GOD responsible for everything, the one never caused or moved upon by another.

The explanation for how the NC (original cause) Exists is not forthcoming: because Existence (whether fecund or void) simply IS.

And it has all been said countless times and will be said again. Some ways it is said resonate with some; and some cannot believe the concept no matter how it is said. And that too will be the divided state of belief and disbelief for all time, so I must suppose….

Our sapience had already posited all the possible "explanations" for Existence in the first place: and the result was "the big chief in the sky",…..

No, that is the "default" position. It is the end result of ignorant proto-hominids, huddled and frightened in their dark caves at night, ill comprehending of the world around them. We are frightened of what we don't know or poorly understand. Inventing mythologies to tell around the campfires is one way to cope. Forgive me if I, and many, many others before me are going along another path.

Doug eloquently regurgitates the argument from special pleading above. In those scientifically naive times, such Neo-Platonic theorizing passed for knowledge. But we have outgrown that now. Does anyone seriously think the Theory of Forms is an adequate description of reality anymore?

Now we know that the natural world is best understood by controlled observation and the scientific method.

Ralph

Thought you might find this interesting:

link

Pete

Thanks Pete that was good.

Doug eloquently regurgitates the argument from special pleading above.

It's a viable theory on how religion, especially monotheism, got started. We all regurgitate, Ralph. It's how we learn and repeat what we think we know.

In those scientifically naive times, such Neo-Platonic theorizing passed for knowledge. But we have outgrown that now. Does anyone seriously think the Theory of Forms is an adequate description of reality anymore?

In the growing presence of the scientific method we still have superstition alive and doing very, very well. There have always been powerful skeptics. That's how the scientific method got "invented". The various theories were more often than not mutually exclusive. You could say that religion in-total shot itself in the foot by trying to argue to an exclusive conclusion: most of religion today is still hard at it doing exactly that. It's called dogmatism.

None of this endless, vain arguing answers any of the terrible questions. And the scientific method simply ignores them, or denies that they even exist within the human mind.

So "in the beginning" our sapient ancestors had thought it all out long before Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, the "morons".

Now we know that the natural world is best understood by controlled observation and the scientific method.

The "natural" world means the empirical world. That doesn't cover imagination, or the metaphysical, or NDEs or a whole raft of non empirical experiences that all of us encounter during a normal lifespan….

It's a viable theory on how religion, especially monotheism, got started. ….

No it's not. It's St. Anselms's proof of God. Can you find anyone who finds this medieval thinking a compelling argument today? And it IS special pleading!

None of this endless, vain arguing answers any of the terrible questions.

What terrible questions? Why am I here? What is the meaning of the Universe? Why is there something instead of nothing?

We've been at these for millenia, with no answers. Why? Because:

A) There are no answers and never will be.
B) They are stupid questions.

Or in other words, just because you can frame something into a question doesn't ensure it is a valid question. Nor does it ensure that an answer is forthcoming.

And the scientific method simply ignores them, or denies that they even exist within the human mind.

Utter nonsense! the scientific method deals with the naturalistic, materialistic reality. Attacking Science for it's failure at the supernatural realm is like criticizing record players because they don't make good surfboards. That is not it's function.

The "natural" world means the empirical world. That doesn't cover imagination, or the metaphysical, or NDEs or a whole raft of non empirical experiences that all of us encounter during a normal lifespan….

The imagination is part of the real, materialistic world as are thoughts, dreams and other chemical, hormonal, and electrical phenomena within our brains.

NDE's have a simple non supernatural medical explanation. Read up on it.

As far as a whole raft of non empirical, supernatural and metaphysical experience that I've supposedly had. I remain skeptical that this realm even exists. I could very well be wrong, but I see no evidence for any of it. Please show me.

Finally, how can you be sure that you are not suffering delusions when you have these experiences. There is a large scientific literature of the shortcomings of our senses. Read Michael Shermer's (the Editor and Publisher of Skeptic Magazine and Scientific American columnist) book, "Why People Believe in Weird Things". He is a Clinical Psychologist teaching at Claremont.

michaelshermer.com

Ralph (who is stuck grovelling on the cold hard floor of the physical, while Doug and others soar like eagles in the metaphysical)

Can you find anyone who finds this medieval thinking a compelling argument today?

link

There's one. There seem to be many. I'ts only a post, but describes what I am looking for. I can't find the article I read recently that went into quite a bit of detail on theorizing how civilization conveniently removed the infighting to determine the alpha male, by putting him in an ascendant, unreachable position. I think this rather predates medieval thinking by a skosh.

NDE's have a simple non supernatural medical explanation. Read up on it.

I am talking about the times when the brain is dead along with the rest of the body, and when revived the NDE experiencer can relate the details in the room, what people were doing, where they were standing, what they said: even on some occasions they could relate these things that happened miles away. Of course, this is not repeatable. You have to be on-sight when it occurs.

I could very well be wrong, but I see no evidence for any of it. Please show me.

What did I just say? You have to be there when it occurs. Nobody can SHOW you.

Soar like an eagle in the metaphysical, I WISH!…

There's one.

We are still talking about the special pleading of St. Anselm's "unmoved mover", are we not? Your example doesn't exonerate this medieval nonsense.

I am talking about the times when the brain is dead along with the rest of the body, and when revived the NDE experiencer can relate the details in the room, what people were doing, where they were standing, what they said:….

You are conflating actual studies on NDE's with hearsay, superstition, and urban legend nonsense. Read up on it. The research tells a different story.

As an example, it's similar to how everyone "knows" that psychics "help" police forces all over the world. Actually, investigative research has shown that psychics have never, ever, ever positively helped ANY police investigation. In fact the opposite has occurred. The psychics have actually diverted police resources away from the investigation.

What did I just say? You have to be there when it occurs. Nobody can SHOW you.

How convenient. Now consider these questions:

What is the control that convinces me that I/you/we are not victims of self-delusion?

If you don't bother to learn how the mind can be tricked, how would you know when it happens to you?

Why is our apparent lack of understanding of the physical world, an invitation to invoke the metaphysical in some?

Ralph

We are still talking about the special pleading of St. Anselm's "unmoved mover", are we not? Your example doesn't exonerate this medieval nonsense.

Okay, I am confused now. When I said, "and the result was "the big chief in the sky", the removed alpha male of the tribe to an unreachable place, so that the extant (empirical) males no longer had to fight to establish who was alpha. The BC became the ONE GOD responsible for everything, the one never caused or moved upon by another" – I was directly addressing the theory of how the "God" of all creation emerged. The theory is that primitive society had the males fighting for dominance to establish the alpha for the clan/tribe/group. Each time this became necessary it was costly. So evolving society took the civilized approach and placed the ultimate alpha male figure "in the sky" as it were, i.e. unreachable: the clan gurgu/shaman communicated with the "big chief in the sky" to get his word on who should be ruler of the tribe, etc. Presto! no more infighting to establish the alpha male, less cost to the tribe (no wounded and killed off males). Where you departed from that back to

No, that is the "default" position. It is the end result of ignorant proto-hominids, huddled and frightened in their dark caves at night,

and then to

Anselm's "unmoved mover",

is where you lost me.

But to address that "unmoved mover" as medieval concept that "nobody" believes anymore: you would have to show that nobody believes it anymore! I for one DO believe it: because uncaused CAUSE is the only way to look at "TFW". Anything else is a lesser concept that requires some cause to explain its existence. TFW has no cause because it IS the only Cause. More than that about it we will probably never know.

You are conflating actual studies on NDE's with hearsay, superstition, and urban legend nonsense. Read up on it. The research tells a different story.

The research fails to be on the spot for the genuine NDEs. They are not replicable or called up on demand for study. That's the problem. Of course there is a lot of urban legend and hearsay about it too: but the genuine cases where the revived patient recalled details impossible for a physical brain to know of (flat-lined, after all) are also real. Now, you can call them into question, certainly: and you can point to corrupt evidence, e.g. before YOU heard about the strange occurrance, the parties to it had already gotten together and talked about what had happened, thus possibly putting ideas into the head of the revived person so that they say that they saw/heard things that were in fact told to them – and then they said, "Yeah! that's exactly what I saw and heard you say", etc. This is the problem with verifying any of these strange cases. I appreciate the difficulties of setting up a pure test case or even more so a test group or groups, to assure no outside corruption of the results. But as I said, NDEs are not something that occur all that often, and they certainly are not available for study just because people are ready to.

If you don't bother to learn how the mind can be tricked, how would you know when it happens to you?

If you were the revived person and you started telling the people in the room what you had seen and heard before anybody talked to you, and it happened to be accurate description while you were clinically dead, how would you or anyone else in the room at the time be able to explain that as even possible? It wouldn't have anything to do with your mind tricking you.

Why, for instance, would the physical brain as it is shutting down, project the awareness to the dead person of departing their body and floating up to the ceiling, and seeing their own body and those medical staff hovering around it? Yet that is precisely the experience of my wife's atheist cousin on the operating table. Her vital signs all flat-lined for several minutes, then she was revived and recalled reentering her body. Why would the physical brain allow the mind that kind of perspective? What could cause the revived brain to recall it clearly when the physical brain was "dead to the world" at the time?

Why is our apparent lack of understanding of the physical world, an invitation to invoke the metaphysical in some?

It is all physical. Even the so-called metaphysical is NATURAL. There isn't anything mumbjumbo about any part of Existence. But as I never tire of saying about myself, "We know practically nothing about almost everything". There is far more to discover than what we think we already know….

Hi

"Flat line", doug doesn't usually include brain wave activity.

While there is some interesting work involving trying to correlate some types of measurable activity with specific ideas like "thinking", nothing really has panned out.

Digressing to a previous part of this thread: Reading "Archeology" I was enjoying some recent work on worked stone on Crete that is some 300,000 to 700,000 years old.

A digression: In order for a stable population in an area, the gene pool needs to start with at least 2000 individuals. Further, if genetic drift is to NOT produce a distictive sub species, or species, there needs to be regular contributions from other semi-isolated populations. Thus, for instance, Abos in Australia might have minor appearance differences between there and, say, ireland, the transmissions back and forth have not prouduced anything significant.

So, the implication of the finds on Crete are two fold. One, they made boats to get there and, be had boats to continue being "in touch" with their neighbors. Does crossing the med in boats constitute "complex tools" in your mind?

Rocky

Okay, I am confused now.

Yes, you are.

…you lost me.

Apparently. Maybe rereading the arguments is in order. Start with April 29th.

But to address that "unmoved mover" as medieval concept that "nobody" believes anymore: you would have to show that nobody believes it anymore! I for one DO believe it: because uncaused CAUSE is the only way to look at "TFW"

If you would read a little more carefully, I incredulously asked, "Does anyone still believe this"? As in, "Does anyone seriously still believe the Earth is flat? So you do. Well, you do have a medieval outlook. You don't see the special pleading? You don't see the fallacy? BTW, where do you find a Doctor to bleed and trephinate you? Some of us have moved on these 900 years.

The research fails to be on the spot for the genuine NDEs……..they certainly are not available for study just because people are ready to.

Yadda yadda. You obviously have not read any of the research, and are mouthing the urban legends.

Why, for instance, would the physical brain as it is shutting down, project the awareness to the dead person of departing their body and floating up to the ceiling, and seeing their own body and those medical staff hovering around it? Yet that is precisely the experience of my wife's atheist cousin on the operating table.

A classic example of the descriptions of dissociative anaesthesia brought on by pre-op medications such as ketamine. But you knew that, because you read the research, right?

Do you have any better evidence that a metaphysical plane/realm/world even exists?

It is all physical. Even the so-called metaphysical is NATURAL.

Meta means "beyond". Metaphysical means "beyond the physical". It also means incorporeal, immaterial, abtruse and even supernatural. If it is "natural" as you assert, please steer me in the direction that I should look, within the natural world. Don't send me to Near-Death.com please.

Rocky's points are well taken. Flat-lining is descriptive of the EKG and NOT the EEG. I also notice he also prefers the term "complex tool" to Dr. Hausers more confusing terminology. Must be his Anthro training.

But Rocky. At 50,000 years ago Crete looks like it is still part of Greece, isn't it? Italy is still attached to Africa and the Mediterranean was actually 2 seas. While trying to find a good map I stumbled across this article dealing with tool making innovations by the Neanderthals. No word of "multi-part" tools however.

link

Ralph

Hi

I am not sure about 50k ago, but these finds are a lot older from when Crete was an island. Besides the marks indicating handles…I was just excited by the idea that a population ON Crete was a pretty new idea.

There is no way to test for out of body actual near death stuff in a repeatable fashion. As a violent youth, it was Zen that helped me be calm and clear and not respond as easily to stress. And like many people doing this stuff, I have personally experienced out of body stuff. Which might just be my fooling myself, except for the whole issue that goes with it…seeing the unseeable.

The issue is a little different to me. Even IF…what is actually happening at death or in out of body experiences is something over which I have no operative control. Thus, like the weather today, I just accept whatever is and will be. Not worth discussing except as a form of mental .

And If I am thinking uselessly in this manner, I would rather go back to reading more on this recent work in Crete!

Rocky

You don't see the special pleading? You don't see the fallacy?

What, that Existence in the first place must have a Cause? How is that obvious demand fallacious?

All I added to that oft-repeated statement is that nothing sapient hominids have come up with in a million years is new by today: it's all been thought out millions and billions of times. And so have the arguments of the skeptics.

What Rocky admits – the seeing the unseeable – is the part Ralph doesn't address. You would rather operate from the position that all such claims are somehow tampering with the evidence after the fact: i.e. all such claims of such are unreliable. Reactions to and the after effects of drugs can't produce the experience of seeing the unseeable. Whatever you call it, a brain that is comatose/DEAD cannot "see" anything: so how can the revived person recount the unseeable?

Metaphysical can be beyond the physical reach of science and still be natural. There is no magic, as in beyond the laws governing existence. It doesn't follow that what occurs here is necessarily all that there is: our perceptions tend to be overwhelmed by our five senses, to the extent that anything beyond them is denied by those who are most overwhelmed by their own empirical senses….

I am not sure about 50k ago, but these finds are a lot older from when Crete was an island.

??

Rocky, Crete was not an island up to 50,000 years ago. At the time you are talking (about 500,000ya) did the Mediterranean even exist?

There is no way to test for out of body actual near death stuff in a repeatable fashion.

Maybe not. These episodes are what are known as "dissociative" states, where the person seems dissociated from their bodies and their surroundings. There are other conditions that produce dissociative states that are indistinguishable from NDE's without actually coming close to dying. On the top of my head we have:

1) exposure to high G forces (centrifugal tests)
2) illness affecting the brain (fevers, meningitis, encephalitis)
3) brain damage
4) mental illness
5) temporal lobe epilepsy
6) sleep disorders
7) drug use
8) dissociative anaesthetics
9) nitrous oxides (laughing gas)

Out of all of these, laughing gas is hopefully the one most of us have experience with. Most of us have experienced this drug, at low therapeutic doses. At various doses laughing gas causes:

a) dissociation (most commonly floating outside of the body)
b) visual hallucinations
c) auditory hallucinations
d) depersonalization
e) derealization
f) an increase in imaginative powers
g) an increase in suggestibility

It is starting to sound familiar.

Source: Canadian Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties

Ralph

Doug, the fallacy is the special pleading.

Seeing the unseeable………sounds nice. What is that phrase telling me.

Metaphysical can be beyond the physical reach of science and still be natural. Sure. Ya.

I ask for examples and am given platitudes.

"…that Existence in the first place must have a Cause? How is that obvious demand fallacious?"

How is that demand obvious?

Metaphysical can be beyond the physical reach of science and still be natural. Sure. Ya.

I ask for examples and am given platitudes.

I gave you one: my wife's cousin, who DIED and was revived and was able to give an account of what was said and done while she was DEAD. The monitors confirmed that she was not physically capable of receiving any information – her brain was comatose. That is the "unseeable", and suggests (is evidence for) awareness dissociated from the physical body….

"…that Existence in the first place must have a Cause? How is that obvious demand fallacious?"

How is that demand obvious?

Existence as perceived empirically is either uncaused or caused. If caused, then there must ultimately be a Cause that simply IS without ever being caused. If existence as we perceive it empirically is not caused, then it already IS the self-mover: everything we perceive is part of – traits of – Existence in the first place. Once we determine to our satisfaction which way it is, we ought to have a name for this ultimate concept we call existence, or reality. I prefer TFW, you might come up with something else….

I gave you one: my wife's cousin, who DIED and was revived and was able to give an account of what was said and done while she was DEAD. The monitors confirmed that she was not physically capable of receiving any information – her brain was comatose.

First, she was not comatose. Second, if she was brain dead then she wouldn't have woken up. NO ON EVER HAS! She would be declared clinically dead, meaning heart activity and, presumably breathing have ceased. Her brain was still working and assimilating data, but in a hypoxic, and dissociative state. Her brain would still be in this functioning, yet dissociative state, for minutes. Like I've repeatedly said, many people describe the exact same scenarios, even without being in a near death experience. Her experience is not a faithful recreation of reality, rather the jumbled and suspect perceptions of a mind under great duress.

Look, suppose I gas you up with nitrous oxide. I ask you your name. You begin laughing uncontrollably, saying I'm the funniest guy you've ever heard. Am I really funny, or is your laughter a consequence of your altered state of mind? Why would the perceptions of a mind that may be dying not have an equally distorted view of reality?

Ralph

If caused, then there must ultimately be a Cause that simply IS without ever being caused.

Special pleading.

Specially pleading WHAT? There can't be another alternative. Existence can't be turtles all the way down because an infinity of causes would have to have been set in motion by a Cause….

Specially pleading WHAT?

Follow the logic yourself. I can't go down the rabbit hole for you.

There can't be another alternative.

Why?

Existence can't be turtles all the way down…….

None of us can possibly know that.

Doug, you are like the classical Greeks(that's a compliment). You like to discern nature by employing logic, as if nature was some sort of geometry problem. Of course this was done at the expense of actual observation, which the Greeks actually disdained. How did the Greeks stack up scientifically? Pretty poor.

Ralph

Except that I DO observe. You say, "Why (can't there be an alternative to Uncaused Cause)"?

I ask, "What other alternative do you suggest"? I can't think of one. Help me out.

The Greeks stack up according to their lights. NOBODY "anciently" stacks up well scientifically. Either they said little or nothing on the subject of Existence in the first place (which at least doesn't offer anything to attack scientifically), or they had plenty to say/write about it and are wiping egg off their faces forever.

Existence can't be turtles all the way down…….

None of us can possibly know that.

You left off the most important part and then said we can't possibly know.

You might as well say we can't know there isn't a FSM responsible for the universe.

"…because an infinity of causes would have to have been set in motion by a Cause".

Turtles all the way down requires a cause: both to have turtles exist in an infinite stack, and to arrange for that infinite stack in the first place. To assume that such exists just because and then ignore what it all IS – that's unscientific dismissal. We can observe the infinite "turtle" stack and assume that "we" fit into the stack somewhere: and yet admit that that's all we know about it. The Existence of the "turtle" stack remains a fact. And either you assume some Cause behind the existence of the "turtle" stack, or you assume that somehow the infinite stack itself IS self-causing. In the latter choice, you have to assume that everything we observe about our place within the "turtle" stack is natural to the infinite "turtle" stack as a whole: nothing "here" has evolved outside of the nature, traits or "matrix" of the infinite "turtle" stack: there are no ex nihilo traits allowed.

And because that must be true, it follows that the "turtle" stack possesses the trait of sapience, since we do….

Sorry Doug.

I left off,

….because an infinity of causes would have to have been set in motion by a Cause….

…..because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Similarly, with:

"Turtles all the way down requires a cause: both to have turtles exist in an infinite stack, and to arrange for that infinite stack in the first place. To assume that such exists just because and then ignore what it all IS – that's unscientific dismissal. We can observe the infinite "turtle" stack and assume that "we" fit into the stack somewhere: and yet admit that that's all we know about it. The Existence of the "turtle" stack remains a fact. And either you assume some Cause behind the existence of the "turtle" stack, or you assume that somehow the infinite stack itself IS self-causing. In the latter choice, you have to assume that everything we observe about our place within the "turtle" stack is natural to the infinite "turtle" stack as a whole: nothing "here" has evolved outside of the nature, traits or "matrix" of the infinite "turtle" stack: there are no ex nihilo traits allowed."

I have no idea what you mean. Chalk it up to "unscientific dismissal".

….it follows that the "turtle" stack possesses the trait of sapience…..

And here I thought it was a fun "turn of phrase" told to Bertrand Russell at the end of a lecture. Now the phrase has "sapience"?

You might as well say we can't know there isn't a FSM responsible for the universe.

"Friendly Sado-Masochist"? I'm so confused.

Ralph

So you can only comment on the historicity of the turn of phrase, and not on what I am talking about by resorting to it?

FSM – Flying Spaghetti Monster – but you are probably just poking fun at me….

From the May?June edition of Skeptical Inquirer:

14 (+ 1) Reasons Why Creationists Are More Intelligently Designed Than Evolutionists

Paul DesOrmeaux

1."Creationism" comes before "evolution" in the dictionary.

2.Radiometric dating has determined that Kirk Cameron is between 6,000 – 10,000 years old.

3.The banana has obviously been perfectly designed by a designer for eating and for using in other creative, non-edible ways.

4.Where the hell are those transitional species, like flying squirrels, for example?

5.If we evolved from monkeys, why don't we look more like the Planet of the Apes chimps?

6.Ben Stein offers a perfect example of irreducible complexity "wherein the removal of any one of the parts [such as dying brain cells] causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

7.Especially when filled with animal crackers, my Noah's Ark cookie jar is an exact replica of the real deal as depicted in my illustrated Bible.

8.Evolution violates the second, third, fourth, and any future laws of thermodynamics that science types can dream up.

9.If the earth were actually billions of years old, all the water from the Genesis flood, which currently covers three-fourths of the Earth's surface, would have disappeared down the drain by now.

10.After supposedly "millions of years," tetrapods haven't evolved into pentapods.

11.Evolution is only a theory, like the theory of the Scottish origin of rap music.

12.There are well known, professionally published scientists who believe in God and who think dogs can telepathically communicate with humans.

13.If you leave bread, peanut butter, and Fluff on a counter long enough, does it eventually evolve into a Fluffernutter sandwich? Not likely.

14.Contrary to claims by Darwinists, Ann Coulter is not a transitional fossil.

15.If creationism isn't a valid alternative theory, then what are we going to do with all that crap in the Creation Museum?

So you can only comment on the historicity of the turn of phrase, and not on what I am talking about by resorting to it?

Sorry, Doug. One makes sense to me, the other doesn't.

Flying Spaghetti Monster – but you are probably just poking fun at me….

Not at all. You know I'm partial to Space Pixies anyway.

Ralph

Which came first, Space Pixies or The Flying Spaghetti Monster? It is an important question in determining which is the Cause and which is the effect….

THe Flying Spaghetti Monster obviously – have you not been touched by his noodly appendage?

Not that I recall. Of course, when I am sleeping anything could happen….

*comes back from hiatus*

…

*sees Darwin thread still at top of science board*

Gat dangit

138, I literally lol'd at your post. Especially the Ann Coulter bit.

Although by now and long ago it "evolved" into something(s) else besides "The Darwin Thread". I doubt that this thread will pose as serious a risk to the well-being of our species as the new super collider, but you never can tell: serious pondering has been going on "here" – and everything has its ripples of outward influence……..

SOme of us still want to see Evolution as the central thrust of the tread, and attacking junk science like ID/Creationism.

Bayonet, me too, that's why I posted.

Elliott

ID/Creationism has many "brands" under those headings. You have the fanatical "inerrancy" types who get all the press and are under constant attack. Then you have those (myself included) who believe in a NC and see the Bible as an early literature attempting to describe it at work. There's nothing unscientific about Genesis, Chapters One and Two, because it is obvious that the internal evidence is not being specific. The concepts of "void" first, then creation taking its place, are not something that science can disprove. The "turtles all the way down" excuse only puts off the NC question, it does not eliminate it….

There are three issues that are being confused here:

(1) The question of 'creation' of the universe,

(2) the arrival of life (abiogenesis)

(3) the question of how life developes once it has arrisen.

The first question is addressed by phyisics and cosmology. Since I am not an expert in those fields I will leave it to those who are.

The second question is addressed by chemistry and boilogy.
Again, not my fields of specific expertise.

The final question ONLY is the concern of the Theory of Evolution.

For various reasons the creationists like to use the 'Look, bright shiny object!" to distract people who attempt to debate them. They will not answer simple direct questions, I should know, after three months I still did not get a streight answer from one such individual on this thread.

The Bible, a work of litriature, describe one bronze-age myth. There where others, the Egyptians have at least four
versions and they were a far more advanced civilization.

The early 20th Century occultist 'Dion Fortune' wrote an even more poetic version of the creation myth in the work "The Cosmic Doctrine" explaining how the NC created the universe.

This tread started out a a call to remember the birthday of Charlie Darwin and the publication of his book. Darwin's theory has been attacked for 150 years; whilst science has modified it somewhat as new knowledge has come to us, the theory has not been replaced.

(3) the question of how life developes once it has arrisen.

This thread would have never gotten off the first page if that was the only thing discussed. But ID/Creationism intruded at once and the rest is off-topic as per (3)….

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists.

link

Interesting Developments!

Pete

"Dr Craig Venter and his colleagues hope to use this technology to design new bacteria from scratch – cells that could carry out useful functions."

Why does this sound ominous? Like so many sci-fi scenarios where scientists experimenting with creating life go horribly wrong: like what happened in "Serenity".

So while trying to improve life here with artificial DNA, they end up creating a super Bug that wipes us all out!

"Some critics have accused Dr Venter and his colleagues of "playing God" and believe that it should not be a role for humans to design new life."

Impossible. TFW will not be usurped by anything part of Existence can do. "Playing TFW" is just TFW playing with itself….

I'm with Doug on this, the safety challenges are great. "The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm." So true.

Another worrisome detail is the relationship with private enterprise. This is unavoidable but still ominous.

Remind me what TFW means again. "The Fairie Witche" perhaps?

Ralph

So what are you suggesting gentlemen? Get out the pitchforks and torches and storm Castle Frankenstein?

I rejoice, we know something today we did not know yesterday. I do I admit subscribe to the Whig View of History and look forward to that day when science triumphs ultimately over superstition.

Gentlemen, and TJ if you're still reading, here is the reaction of a biologist to the work of Dr. Venter. More to the point he highlights the reactions of various people to the story:

link

Enjoy.

Remind me what TFW means again.

The Forbidden Word = "God" (see you in a week….)

Well ID is now officaly in the texas school books, but that dosn't bother the people over at the fez

So what are you suggesting gentlemen? Get out the pitchforks and torches and storm Castle Frankenstein?

No. Not at all.

But I agree with Dr. Myers saying, "This is not to say that there couldn't be valid concerns……"

Well ID is now officaly in the texas school books, but that dosn't bother the people over at the fez

Why should you be surprised at that?

The Forbidden Word = "God" (see you in a week….)

Hope not, buddy. I'll bring the dog biscuits!

Ralph

Well ID is now officaly in the texas school books, but that dosn't bother the people over at the fez

It doesn't bother me to teach ID of Creationism in public school: AS PART OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, inclusive of all the major religious beliefs/myths of how the world came into being. Replacing actual science with ID as "science" is right out. I don't believe that TX is doing this….