"Darwin Day" Topic

Hi

Actually, "sad inditment" isn't an attack in which universe". That a larger percentage in america versus the rest of the world is a difference in degree not kind.

AND, like all surveys, I am not clear how this was asked. WE have all seen surveys constructed to produce a known result for political purposes. A fez discussion.

And as I said, I am pretty sure that even if 100% of France said they believed in evolution, they would STILL have no idea what it means. The vast majority of graduates of schools in the first world have trouble with the basic stuff let alone actual science.

Quibbling about "empirical science"..ya, you got doug on this. HOWEVER, all you have demonstrated is that this has degenerated into a personal "me against you" fight rather than an educational discussion. Otherwise, it would have been notied that we are talking elsewhere about Greek science.

To quibble about "black" actually in the world of pigments, there are blue blacks, brown blacks and so on. Quibbling like this is usually an indicator in a discussion that it has reached the "heat but no light" phase.

Thus, ralph, rather than quoting you, I will let you decide when you have defended the religious. Remember gunny started this with the assertian that science and religion were mutually exclusive, and citing religious well known scientists has led to otherwise in your posts.

And, of course, you let it slide when the discussion shifted from science versus a bronze age book to the new testiment, and things like the bald assertian that the catholics were fundies on the bible sometime until 1979.

What is more obvious is that some individuals proclaiming themselves catholic get fundy about parts of the bible, but that proving the catholics have always been fundamentalists hasn't been on offer. As a matter of logic, if you make a blanket "all" statement, then one exception disproves the point.

A better proof would be some sort of proving something like the US doesn't produce world class scientists because of this "54%" number.

tell you a story. Wife was a geneticist. I had told her that there was a prejudice among some groups that sicilians were "blacks passing" because sicliy being so close to africa. So, 8 years ago in Germany at a primary conference, 2 german geneticists discussing the italian food they were eating made this exact observation in front of her. The point? Even educated people who should know better still have their prejudices. I would not, however, take this to prove the general "Germans are anti-science racists".

Which is the problem in the last few pages of posting.

Rocky

Actually, "sad inditment" isn't an attack in which universe".

Apt criticism and attack are not the same. Sorry you think otherwise.

And, of course, you let it slide when the discussion shifted from science versus a bronze age book to the new testiment, and things like the bald assertian that the catholics were fundies on the bible sometime until 1979.

You have a bad habit of putting words in peoples mouths. My points were:

1) I understand what Augustine was trying to say and agree with him.

2) I don't think one can show that the Catholic Church put Augustine's comments into practice.

3) A reading of the Inquisition transcripts regarding Galileo indicate Pope Urban VIII and all the requisite offices of the Church supported a literal reading of the Bible regarding Earth's position and movement within the Heavens.

4) Pope John Paul II's re-affirmation of Augustine's point against using the Bible as a literal scientific explanation in 1979, support my contention. Otherwise, why come out with that statement?

Hardly, baldly asserting Catholics are "fundies". Kindly quote me accurately or not at all.

Ralph

Hi

ralph… again, too wedded to your primary position:

1)So, we agreed, but you still wanted to dispute?

2)The essence of any philosophy, religious or other wise is a failure of individuals to make the idea. Thus that some are fundies doesn't mean all are fundies. Or as I said above, the hindu saying "a god is not responsible for the sorts of people who profess belief in him".

3)the inquisition now? Remember the part in another thread where we agreed that the dispute was because of greek science not the bible? As the old testiment was not written in either castillian or latin, just where did you decide that the inquisition were fundies for your position?

4)That is simple. Trying to get everyone on the same page, just as he was with several other points of doctrine and, indeed, an attempt to unify christendom.

Ralph, just what do you mean, then. You assert that they were fundies until Paul II? if not, why bring it up. Fundies until Aquinas or why bring it up. Supporting augustine, why bring that up? See anyone can play the game.

Look, I see a simple point here. Gunny asserted that the religious and science were an impossible mix. And you weighed in supporting it without actually saying it directly. But overall, "words in your mouth" not withstanding, you seem to be displaying a bias. I know theologians who don't have any faith, I know scientists who do.

R

Rocky, I'm not interested in disputing your version of what I assert. It is either wrong or misleading in order to support your argument. Quote me or clam up.

And you weighed in supporting it without actually saying it directly.

See what I mean?

the inquisition now? Remember the part in another thread where we agreed that the dispute was because of greek science not the bible? As the old testiment was not written in either castillian or latin, just where did you decide that the inquisition were fundies for your position?,

? I brought up the Inquisition because Galileo was brought to the Office of the Cardinal Inquisitors when sent to Rome in 1633. See how that works?

AND, like all surveys, I am not clear how this was asked. WE have all seen surveys constructed to produce a known result for political purposes.

Oh ya, don't like the results, so there MUST be something wrong with the methodology. Political even. Here is the article (a refereed journal, no less), so you can look for yourself.

J.D. Miller, et al, "Public Acceptance of Evolution in 34 Countries", Science 313, 2006, pg 765-766.

Ralph

Got to love the internet:

link

This is the study that Ralph mentions.

Note the position of the US at #33….

And notice that Spain and Italy to very devout countries are just as high up as countries with low religous populations.

Which should show that the american religious leanings are quite WORNG, and is realy a perversion of religion and not realy religion at all

Hi

And how was the question asked in each language?

Ralph, yes or no, is it possible to be religious and be a competent scientist? Gun says no, as an absolute and providing ONE exception is all that is necesaary to disprove it.

138: you are correct, the US at the bottom must mean that, as usual, the US is a failure in sceince. It is amazing that virtually every survey about some enlightened position involving the UN and Europe always results in the US being at the bottom. Thus, a failed stated that needs the kindly first world to come in and monitor our activities like the UN does in Kenya.

I appreciate your pointing this out.

Ya, I feel sooo ignurnt I can hardly live with myself….

Well if parents are objecting to the President of the US speaking to American school children – how are the going to listen to science teachers?

link

According to this survey Doug your state isn't doing too badly on science education:

link

If the US fails on the subject of enlightened education rather than blaming the Europeans and the UN, why is there not more analysis within the US as to the reason for the failure. Or do the answers presented by the educators not to the liking of the politicos.

Re Italy the country has become increasing secular over the last 30 years. Spain has likewise libralised itself since the death of the fascist dictator Franco who was a great supporter of the Catholic church.

Finally, I only report the survey, I did not organise it.

Blimey! You turn your back for one minute….

Seven months – this most be one of the longest dialogues of the deaf that TMP has had.

Yes that is quite a long run, not Cats long, but still quite long

The "don't accept evolution" in the states is just a symptom of the larger miss trust of education.
Sevral times you hear people not getting into police forces in small towns becasue "he's a collage boy"
Americans like greasy car mechanics not Collage proffesors.

A commen coment during the election was how the right didn't trust some harward lawyer, I actualy got that sevral times while debeting americans.

collage boy and harward lawyer. like having a good education is a bad thing.
The want a persident to be stupider them them, not smarter.
They can't trust smart people. And this is the same thing when it comes to evolution, science is for brainiacs and patriotic americans don't like brainiacs
They want blue collar truck drivers not PHD astophysisist

And how was the question asked in each language?

Read the study.

Ralph, yes or no, is it possible to be religious and be a competent scientist?

Yes.

Gun says no, as an absolute and providing ONE exception is all that is necesaary to disprove it.

No Gun doesn't say anything of the sort. Quit your "asserting" , misquoting and learn to use the TMP quote function so we know you are not distorting the facts. What Gunfreak actually said was (alluding to Newton):

To show that even great men a clouded by Religion

While he did ALOT of great descoveries, his faith limited him, had he not belived in a god, he might have descoverd even more, 100 years later Laplace continued his work and made more complete discoveries about the same subject as Newton.
When Napoleon(hey it's even wargaming related) Ask Laplace why he didn't mention god in his book(something Newton did)
Laplace answerd: "I had no need of that hypothesis"

I don't read that as Gunfreak saying a religious scientist is incapable of being a competent scientist. (Note: the emphasis on "might" was added by me).

I appreciate your pointing this out.

You're welcome.

Ralph

Rocky,

One of the co-authors of that study is a personal hero of mine, Dr. Eugenie Scott. Since 1981, she is the Director of the National Center for Science Education and was, with Dr Ken Miller, an expert witness at the Dover trial. She is a Fellow of the AAAS.

You be interested to know that her Ph.D is in Physical Anthropology. She is legit. So is her study.

Ralph

I'll back Ralph up on this, I've followed Eugenie Scott's work for a number of years and she is a reliable scientist.

Trouble is based on Gunfreaks remarks that carries little wait in the US.

Sigh.

Eugenie Scott does a very important job, and deserves great respect.
That said I lost a little of that respect when she said two dumb things.

1. She referd to Plesiosaur as dinosaur, fine I could have let that one go. but the next one is hard to defend.
2. She said Basking shark was a whale, thats a BIG mistake.
I'm sure she just got something mixed up and she knows it's a shark, but it did sound a little stupid when you know she is the Director of the National Center for Science Education, you need to keep your tung straight when you have that title.

Hi

You are pettyfogging again, ralph. I wasn't referring to the newton thing, and I am not really interested in re-reading the thread(did you notice my fight with the creationist in the first few hundred posts?)

To refer to some posts above. My OPINION is that not only should ID NOT be taught as science, it should not be taught PERIOD. If one goes to a religious school, perhaps in a religion class. But never in a public school.

The old separation thing.

The local mormons do have religious schools for the faithful to addend AFTER school.

That said. Ya'll are also locked into a few biases that you cannot seem to see. Remember, I am NOT a believer in any religion or ID. These guys are advocating a position. You act as if there is some sort of national requirement in the US teaching religion in our schools.

Which isn't true in any form. Then you conflate that ID exists and some advocating it into a general attack on the entire US.

I have not jumped on some of you for doing "wait" for "weight" and so on, and I don't appreciate your doing attacks on me based on words rather than content.

the criteria for the study in foriegn lands isn't specified. Nor how the question was asked. An example, "were you taught evolution" is not the same as "do you believe in evolution". Belief? For Science?

Another "bash america" point is "harvard", "college boy" isn't what you think. Think of it as the aussie "pommie". It isn't that someone has an education, it is that in an eglatarian society, putting on "airs" is a bad thing. "Ivory tower elitist" is, I think one shared by your societies. It is specifically the educatation, it is the assumption of being "more equal".

As for Eugenie…everyone gets to misspeak. The problem becomes, again, using these this sort of detail mistake as a "proof" of a position. An example here is that I have no idea what "tung" means above, do I wax on obsessing with Gunny's problems?

Rocky

9 pages and still going strong

Actually I've no problem with teaching religion in school – as a religious class. I grew up in England and went to school there, under the 1944 Education Act religion education of a Christian nature was the ONLY compulsory subject throughout the K – 12 period.

I actually found it useful. We used the King James Bible and it help with understanding culture in History and English. It also gives those of us with inquiring minds a chance to see the problems within faith.

My problem with this subject comes from the kulturekampf where religion wants its creation myth taught as science. Have the creation myth by all means, just don't teach it in science class.

The idea of have the religious classes after the end of the school day is fine, especially if it is not compulsory. I hope that in science classes in Utah they cover the fact that there is no evidence that Native American DNA is not related to ancient Hebrews or that in US history class their is no evidence for the horse until the 16thC.

Constitutionally there are problems to have a compulsory religious classes in the US,especially in the light of the statements in the Treaty of Tripoli from the 1790's; I understand that. You also have the question of which version of Christianity you teach for since there is the problem of the True Christianity (tm). Utah, founded as a theocracy in the first instance and still with a large proportion of the population members of the LDS church is probably better able to follow such policies. Here in Minnesota we are much more religiously diverse with Lutherans forming the largest Christian group.

Der Alte Fritz! Willkommen zu den Kulturkämpfen!

Utah, founded as a theocracy in the first instance and still with a large proportion of the population members of the LDS church is probably better able to follow such policies.

Once-upon-a-time, no more.

When I was in high school Mormon "seminary" hour counted as a credit toward graduation (class of '71 here): no longer. Now it is "released time" and is not overlapped, at, all, with the secular, State-run curriculum.

I echo the sentiments above on "teach religion in school", just don't teach it as science. If your district wants to fund a religion class by popular vote, then they should be able to do that; if a minority wants to fund a religion class, they are welcome to try. Equal opportunity, inequal resources kind of thing. But religion classes should always be privately funded….

I echo the sentiments above on "teach religion in school", just don't teach it as science. If your district wants to fund a religion class by popular vote, then they should be able to do that; if a minority wants to fund a religion class, they are welcome to try. Equal opportunity, inequal resources kind of thing. But religion classes should always be privately funded….

It funny I could support that without any problem.

Indeed I have no problem with religion being included in the general public funding as a social studies course. The problem is finding suitable teachers. Rather like the job of galactic president in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", if you wanted the job, you were disqualified from taking it. In my state school back in England, in middle school I had a non-denominational 'born-again' evangelist – the best recruiting sergeant the atheist could wish for. At high school we had a much more relaxed episcopalian.

…….or that in US history class their is no evidence for the horse until the 16thC.

Sorry, RAF, whilst I agree with the gist of your argument the above fact just isn't true. Horses surely existed in the New World. In fact, Pliohippus was the first horse to run on a single toe and lived in North America. It is likely that Pliohippus crossed into Asia and may have been the precursor for modern horses, even though that last point is controversial.

It seemed that horses developed in the New World, expanded into Asia and then died out in the Americas between 10,000 to 8,000 years ago. I guess they were at the tale end of the big mega-fauna dying-off.

Ralph

She said Basking shark was a whale, thats a BIG mistake.

Are you sure she didn't say "whale shark"? I wiki'd Basking shark, as I had never heard of one before. It's proper name is Cetorhinus Maximus. Now mixing Latin and Greek together I think that means, "big(gest) whale nose". Are you sure she wasn't talking about that?

Ralph

Ralph,

My bad, I'd forgotten the earlier version of the horse being found in north America.

The point I was, of course, trying to make was that there were no ancient Hebrews running North America in the 6thC BCE in chariots, or on foot for that matter. Got to love a 'bronze age book' cobbled together in the 1820's…..

Yes, I did read The Book of Mormon, why I'm not entirely sure now. I found it was both good and original. Unfortunately the parts that were good were not original and the parts that were original were not good.

Ralph

You can see the video here
link

The point I was, of course, trying to make was that there were no ancient Hebrews running North America in the 6thC BCE in chariots, or on foot for that matter. Got to love a 'bronze age book' cobbled together in the 1820's…..

The "informed" Mormon apologist views such unshowable "facts" (assertions, really) in the Book of Mormon as matters of faith. There are any number of explanations as to why horses, ore tailings, various mentioned grains, Hebrew DNA, or any geographical site as given in the BofM, have never turned up a single shred of physical evidence. The apologist points to the many similarities and possibilities that do appear to work with the MesoAmerican model. And if you want to believe you can: as long as you don't want too much physical evidence to back up your "faith". So far, lack of evidence is the strongest attack on the BofM, not direct physical refutation of it (but as "they" say, you can't prove or disprove a negative)….

Hi

My kids never heard anything hin history classes about early america that didn't cover the "Lo! the poor indian" period". The BOM version of pre-columbian history is not mentioned. Although a few locals got all excited over "Cahokia" making the papers. I spent a lot time time explaining that one to the hopeful.

Let me put it this way, the best person in my life after K-12, and several advanced degrees had never heard of the French and Indian war except from ME and her oldest kid.

My kids usually claim to be homeschooled!

Rocky

The "informed" Mormon apologist views such unshowable "facts" (assertions, really) in the Book of Mormon as matters of faith. There are any number of explanations as to why horses, ore tailings, various mentioned grains, Hebrew DNA, or any geographical site as given in the BofM, have never turned up a single shred of physical evidence. The apologist points to the many similarities and possibilities that do appear to work with the MesoAmerican model. And if you want to believe you can: as long as you don't want too much physical evidence to back up your "faith". So far, lack of evidence is the strongest attack on the BofM, not direct physical refutation of it (but as "they" say, you can't prove or disprove a negative)…

Interesting comments, Doug. I must say that that type of faith, I have never had. I could never have that type of faith, in that I could not reconcile my beliefs with contradictory physical evidence. I also do not think that I am lacking either, because I cannot muster such a type of faith.

I remember being young and listening to a Priest talking about Thomas of the New Testament. You know the guy who wanted to see Christ's stigmata before he could believe that Christ was actually crucified and then resurrected. The moral of the story was to show that Thomas was somehow lacking in character, because he only had doubts and not sufficient faith. Only later, when Thomas discovered his faith, did he become Thomas the Believer instead of the Doubter. I remember thinking that Thomas was actually quite sensible and justified in his doubt, and that I would have acted the same. That was just one of many times when I thought that this "religion-stuff" might not work out with me. I just couldn't get behind a philosophic system that put faith ahead of observation, experience and skepticism.

But that is just me and everyone else's mileage must surely vary.

Ralph

Gunfreak, I couldn't watch the whole video and missed her gaffe. The Plesiosaur being a dinosaur I will let slide. Most people call Pterodactyls and Pterosaurs dinosaurs too, even though they are flying lizards. "Dinosaur" is a colloquial term that cover a lot of creatures.

A similar well used by biologically erroneous set of terms would be salmon and trout. All salmon and all trout belong to the same Salmonidae Family. The eastern shore Trout are closely related to the Atlantic Salmon but are not closely related to the Pacific Trout. That's Ok because the Pacific Salmon isn't that related to the Atlantic version, but are more closely related to the Pacific Trout. So the terms "trout" and "salmon" are less important than the terms "Atlantic" and "Pacific"!! Both Atlantic species are in the same genus and both Pacific species are in the same genus. Weird huh?

Don't get me started on Pluto not being a planet either, strictly speaking.

Ralph

Unfortunately the parts that were good were not original and the parts that were original were not good.

Hey, I've heard that before………but I still like it!

Ralph

Hi

Ralph, I went through the same process with the nuns. I essentially said "why would you NOT test if it was in front of you?"

On the other hand, most religions, including the mormons, like to attack other believers by citing "facts" that "disprove" the faith of others.

R

On the other hand, most religions, including the mormons, like to attack other believers by citing "facts" that "disprove" the faith of others.

I think that goes to the core of my dislike of ID'ers and other efforts to "scientise" religion. Its like a highly selective blindness – facts that support your argument are to be shouted loudly in the face of opponents, facts that go against it are to be dismissed by reference to the need for "faith".

For Douglas Adams fans – its basically the Babelfish argument on the existence of God.

<link>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Babel_fish</link>

I can't work out what this arguement has devolved (!) into.

Except that "God" doesn't require anything to Exist, so Adams' "logic" is (deliberately) fallacious….

Hi

Except for TJ, I think the devolution is simple. Folks mostly start with either anti-religion or pro religion but with discussion, they realize they aren't in disagreement!

Doug has no science background, but respects and learns from those who do. As one example, and the athiests learn that their prejudices about the religious are also wrong.

I sort of see this as a good thing.

and the atheists learn that their prejudices about the religious are also wrong.

Sorry Rocky we may agree on some issues but as one of the Atheists our fundamental objects to the existence the any invisible sky pixie, the deplorable history of religion, and the hypocrisy of many (but in fairness not all) of the religious leaders and followers remains. Have not been dispelled by these discussion.

Finally, nothing stated during the last 430+ has convinced me that their was an "Intelligent Designer". I would like to know why those who do believe in that designer are prepared to accept the fact that it knew obviously failed to adequately understand even basic engineering considering the number of design flaws in the human body.

You want perfection from a perfect "Designer". Why? This world DIES. Everything in the universe does that constantly. Isn't DEATH the ultimate flaw? Since we and everything around us is in the very attitude of running down, only to be replaced by more things that run down (die), it follows that something else is going on besides a mindless process with no purpose (you are not mindless and you have purpose, ergo the existence of these qualities must derive from someTHING besides yourself; you can't have an ex nihilo intelligence or purpose). This world is not supposed to be perfect; it is possibly supposed to be interesting, and informative, and educational….

As one example, and the athiests learn that their prejudices about the religious are also wrong.

Sorry, Rocky, but I don't think my prejudices towards religion are wrong at all. In fact, the more I learn, the more my misgivings are vindicated. What has been written on this thread that would make me feel otherwise?

Ralph

Bill has been removing my posts so I'm outta here!

Just to bring the thread back on topic.

Here's a new VERY good video, the realy explanes it all.

YouTube link

And this one is made a a Christian.

It basicly shows just how ing many diffrent and separate machanisms you can use to prove evolution

Hi Gunfreak,

I think you listed that link already. Now as a change of pace, here's a VERY BAD video. Alas, it explains it all too.

YouTube link

How much uncritical thinking is involved to make such a viewpoint?

Ralph

"Dr" Zaid has a point: everything is structured like water. How he arrives at "this disproves evolution" is a poser. All organic life we know of is water-based: which merely supports evolution of all organic life. All life evolves using the same structure of cellular replication….

Reading 'The Greatest Show on Earth- the Evidence for Evolution', where Dawkins puts it in layman's language, where he is detailing some pretty amazing experiments.

"Dr" Zaid has a point: everything is structured like water.

I figured you'd agree with that. He shows how water aligns in crystals and then shows how myofibrils form to make muscle filaments. As the graphic looks somewhat similar, they must be the same, ergo they are the same. Good logic. Especially when it supplements your religious text

FYI, everything is not structured like water! Just because we are water based doesn't mean everything is structured like water! It means we evolved on a water based planet.

All life evolves using the same structure of cellular replication….

Well, Doug, I have to give you "props". You said something I can agree with (if by structure, you actually mean mechanism). You will still have a little trouble with virus's.

The point is, Dr. Z (wonder what he got his Doctorate in?) does the same logical twists as our old friend TJ Raymond did. Remember his comment on Darwin?:

I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

Ya. As Rocky and I like to do, here is a good example of a false syllogism. So Dr. Z starts by saying, Darwinism/Evolution turns us from God/Allah. This turning from God/Allah is bad. Therefore, Darwinism/Evolution is bad. Therefore we shouldn't study it.

It makes me wonder if biological scientific research in Islamic Universities consists of admiring graphics of water and muscles and how well this "similarity" conforms to the Koran. TJ Raymond and the rest of the IDiot's worldviews are not that much different.

Ralph

Looking up Dr. Z's credentials and finding he has a Ph.D in bio-engineering!! Yikes!

There are three things to take away from this:

1) Being good at one field doesn't make you competent in another, no matter how closely related.

2) This gives fuel to Gunfreaks's question whether a strong religious belief can blind you to science. How deep would he go into evolutionary theory if it contradicts his religious world view?

3) Dr. Z may be a good engineer, but he ain't no scientist. He is just another IDiot with an even dodgier explanation than usual.

Ralph

Hi

Wow! This thing is just an amazing demonstration of circular reasoning. "Water is the mother?".

That is like saying all oil paintings, using oil and canvas, must have had the same painter!

All autos made of steel and plastic must have the same designer/engineer!

All of us writing here using the same board must be sock puppets of Bill!

Rocky

I think Zaid is thinking back, beyond the BB or anything relating to this universe's existence: he seems to see "God" as THE single Author of all living things. In that he is correct, since Existence in the first place requires a Necessary Cause.

But to go from that to "evolution is bad therefore it is false" just drops the logic he's claiming to use. There is no reason why "God", a single "Author" of all life, cannot use evolution and billions and billions of our years to make the universe happen.

Why the Quran and Bible have to "feel" threatened by modern knowledge, when they were written to people long before "the structure of water" was even a concept, is the funny/sad aspect of this confrontation between science and religion.

I don't believe in ANY dogmatic definition of an anthropomorphic "God": yet I believe in GOD more than ever, even while I cannot entertain any simplistic concept of what that word/name/title means….

You want perfection from a perfect "Designer".

Look we all know ID is merely warmed over creationism and the "Designer" is the so-called god from those three Abrahamic faiths. According to those same faiths man was 'created' in god's image – Genesis 1:27. That's what the faith-head IDiots claim. Meaning old Jehovah (YHVH) didn't know what he was doing or is not perfect, which also goes against the idea the the ISP (Invisible Sky Pixie) is all knowing (John 3:20) since he obviously failed engineering and basic physiology.

The alternative, that many of our problems come from apes that evolved to walk upright which explains all the design flaws.

Or said another way, evolution is more interesting to WATCH.

You're right: I have no truck with the "Abrahamic God" (which makes sitting in church a silently interresting, and often boring, experience).

IDers, Creationists, have a point: "God did it" is still the best term for explaining why we have Existence in the first place and not a dark Void with nothing. "God" is the problematic part for many, but not for me: I don't ever expect to understand "God". At the same time I believe that "God" is constantly coming "at" me from every direction: manifesting, and I naturally will anthropomorphize "God" since I am an anthropod: but I would be stupid to assume that "God" in-total IS a man….