BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 07:45 AM

GUEST,josep

The only thing that has been experimentally proven is that consciousness collapses the wave function into a particle, into matter. That HAS been experimentally proven.

You keep saying things to that effect, but try as I might, I can find no evidence to back it up. Could you give us some references?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 10:51 PM

You have to make a case

You don't seem to have made yours to anyone's satisfaction yet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 10:12 PM

////Also, just because we don't know everything *about* how the mind comes from the brain, doesn't detract from the knowledge that it's doing it somehow. Again, what else could reasonably be hypothesized?////

Except you haven't hypothesized anything. You're making a dogmatic statement and apparently expecting people to buy it. Either you have a scientific experiment that proves your assertion or you have a logical argument.

The only thing that has been experimentally proven is that consciousness collapses the wave function into a particle, into matter. That HAS been experimentally proven. So it is highly unlikely that the brain-which is matter-produces the agent necessary to create matter from quantum waves. If this doesn't prove that the brain does not and cannot make consciousness, it very strongly indicates it. Now, what do you have to proves this not to be true? Just saying "what else could it be?" won't cut it. It could be a lot of things. You have to make a case.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 10:03 PM

///"I know a guy who had a heart attack and died for a short time. When they revived him he had no short term memory."

*sigh* Well, he didn't really "die" then, did he?///

Well, fuck, I don't know--do you?? He was pronounced dead and then he was revived and when he woke up, he had no short-term memory. Am I going too fast for you??

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 09:43 PM

"Despite its distinctively human cranium and its chronological position near the origin of the human line, habilis had a fairly apelike physical form: its arms were almost as long as its legs. It is therefore a controversial species. Similar in physique to the australopithids, without a clear evolutionary descendant, and appearing highly variable in the fossil record, habilis raises more questions than the available fossils are able to answer."

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs4.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 09:41 PM

"Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, they opinion that it was a direct human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.

"Other problems include that some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus, except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species." –C. David Kreger

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homohabilis.htm

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:51 PM

The most fundamental division in perspectives in the entire thread, and all the others like it down the decade, is whether the entire spectrum of phenomena ranging from dense solids to organic development to emotion, attitudes and opinions to the highest tendrils of thought itself are a single continuous spectrum, or whether there is a qualitative division in it.

Fer goo'ness sake.

As to what is circular, if you assume that there is nothing but material elements in the phenomenological universe, then it is obvious and irrefutable that brains produce thought. If you do not accept that assumption, it is possible that brains merely reflect thought, amplify and channel it.

These are two entirely different world-views. One of them accounts for the range of variations in phenomena such as apparent past-life memory, instances of telepathic linking, precognition, remote-viewing, OOB experiences, NDE's, and other "fringe" phenomena.

The other model has no explanation for these things and tends to dismiss them as highly improbable events, anecdotal, and probably delusory. One paradigm includes the physical, the emotional, the mental, and the spiritual; the other includes the physical and considers emotion, thought, spirituality as by-products and minor disruptions.

Pay yer money, and take your choice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:21 PM

Mryzz, there are still a couple of things we don't yet know. It appears, for instance, that the skin on one's body either *hears* or facilitates hearing. Who'd a thunk it?

Sure - but no researcher is saying that anything but the *brain* is doing the hearing, regardess of where the input originates. What else could possibly be doing it?

And what is circular in this statement? I'm certainly not saying that the mind makes the brain.

Also, just because we don't know everything *about* how the mind comes from the brain, doesn't detract from the knowledge that it's doing it somehow. Again, what else could reasonably be hypothesized?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM

What bobad says is generally accepted these days, I think (I like saying "I think" because that's what Charlie Darwin put, self-effacingly, on top of his famous tree diagram).

"///Incidentally, Darwin didn't "teach" anything. ///

No kidding."

NO, Josep, really no kidding. Darwin was not a teacher.

"I know a guy who had a heart attack and died for a short time. When they revived him he had no short term memory."

*sigh* Well, he didn't really "die" then, did he? I suggest that his memory loss was due to his brain being deprived of oxygen for a short time while his heart was temporarily stopped. Sometimes the most boring explanations have a far better chance of being the truthful ones. That philosophy, if it is one, is what makes us atheists tick. The whole world is so...wonderfully ordinary...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM

Mrrz, my friend, your question begs the entire discussion, for goodness sake. You are making a circular argument.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM

"There is no trace of Neanderthal genetic material in Homo Sapiens....."

"Researchers compared the Neanderthal genome with the genomes of five living people: one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person. Scientists discovered that 1% to 4% of the latter three DNA samples is shared with Neanderthals — proof that Neanderthals and early modern humans interbred. The absence of Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of the two present-day Africans indicates that interbreeding occurred."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 07:37 PM

Each hominid that was found was tested and genetic modifications were found. The idea that Evolution is a shambles is unrealistic. Each bone found, each species and genus studied shows that there is a ladder of development but again, one species does not produce another. They must all have a common root ancestor.

The idea that a god has any part in this is completely irrelevant to what Evolution is.

The idea that Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals is not generally accepted in scientific circles. Neanderthals died out. There is no trace of Neanderthal genetic material in Homo Sapiens because they were a different grouping of a species. They have a common root ancestor, though, and this is amply shown by anthropological studies through biologists and paleontology. There are a lot of suppositions about what actually takes place in the study of Evolution in laboratories by non-scientists.

What really is a "shambles" is the lack of information about Evolution today and what has been accomplished through genetic testing, carbon dating and tree rings as well as methods in embryology. The fact that not all scientists don't agree doesn't invalidate
any of the legitimate findings in Evolution today. There will always be a scientific minority who challenge prevailing "theorums" and this is healthy. But the burden of proof to disqualify any of these "theorums" is on the dissenting scientists.

As to the mind vrs. brain controversy, only those with a propensity for seeking religious or philosophical answers to scientific methods would separate the mind from the brain. Any attempt to mystify the workings of the brain by attributing to it an outside "mind" has no basis in any scientific finding.

Of course there are many things we don't know and are learning every day. Suppositions
based on lack of scientific information do no good in interpreting Evolution or the mind vrs. brain controversy.

Theological or philosophical constructs serve no purpose in identifying scientific evidence.
Since evidence is fluid and not rigid, the idea that any evidence of this nature is dogmatic is specious. It is not "faith-based". The only reason that those who say it is do so because of their theological bias which is generally dogmatic and not based on scientific
evidence but solely reliant on their "faith".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM

Mryzz, there are still a couple of things we don't yet know. It appears, for instance, that the skin on one's body either *hears* or facilitates hearing. Who'd a thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM

Amos: we do not know that the brain makes the mind.

Sure we do. What else could reasonably do which part?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:08 PM

Serendipity, I suppose, but shortly after reading the final page (so far) of this seemingly interminable argument, somebody made a comment about an entirely unrelated matter, which seemed apposite.

"Anything is possible, if you don't know what you're talking about!"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM

It seems to me that consciousness and memory are two separate things, and if we get amnesia we are simply not conscious of a particular set of memories. Our memories are mostly always retained during unconsciousness and one does not affect the other. Our memories don't have to be real ones either, they can be planted or self-fabricated. Time doesn't ever disappear, it is independent of consciousness or memory. When we die, I think we lose both. I think we are dead. There is so far no real evidence anywhere, logical or scientific, to indicate otherwise. Any belief to the contrary has to be based on faith, and I have none. Maybe Josep actually has faith in his 'argument', I don't know, but I remain unconvinced. I take it as he now recommends, with a (huge) grain of salt. I would dearly like to see how it was received in an actual scientific or philosophical debate. I don't particularly consider myself highly educated but I think I can recognise shite when I see it. It would seem both the Faithful and the sceptic can rest easy in their beds.

My 'umble verdict.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 04:14 PM

I was going to post a reasoned argument- that you'd just proved via the example of your friend (I have a similar one) that memory, the spirit, the soul, depends critically on a continuous supply of oxygen, and when it loses that, it goes. No reincarnation, not even in this life.

But then you posted that ignorant crap about evolution, and I lost the will to talk to you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM

///we all speak from our limitations but was half pleased by the admission that evolutionists adhere to their doctrine for not entirely science reasons-if i understand you correctly josep.to those alleging macro evoluton as established fact, to me illustrates the truth of the above book title. dogmatism on both sides?it seems the most ardent evoluttionist will admit some possibility of God-as long as he needed evolution to create us ,though dawkins has been critical of theologians who compromise what the bible plainly states!///

The problem is that one of those charts I posted (I won't call them ladders and offend anyone), explains very well the problem--there is no agreement on where very hominids of the past fit in. Some insist this or that hominid was a dead end but other think it lived on and contributed the the formation of H. sapiens. And they can't agree when these groups walked the earth--differences of a million or more years depending on the source you consult. Well, that's too much!!! A difference of 20,000 years is too much if the evolutionists are to be believed since modern humans came about in less time than that and built this civilization in half that time.

Human evolution is a shambles and it's about time they admit is a shambles. It's like one of those huge jigsaw puzzles and they have only a dozen or so pieces locked together and those aren't even locked to one another. Moreover, there's pieces of other puzzles mixed in that will have to be eliminated at some point. That's why that one chart differentiates between hominids and hominins. Hominids present extraneous pieces and we can't even agree on which groups belong in which category.

But to the public, they present this seemingly united front while behind the curtains it's a free for all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 03:31 PM

One more thing concerning my argument I need to bring up--brain damage. I told someone we would discuss it but I forgot.

I know a guy who had a heart attack and died for a short time. When they revived him he had no short term memory. To him, every morning he wakes up it's still 1986.

Does this invalidate my argument? Let's see.

I said that if you get complete amnesia, your consciousness skips over events no longer remembered. Due to his brain damage, he does get complete amnesia concerning everything that happens after his heart attack in 1986. So what happens? His consciousness skips over it.

Suppose it was the opposite and he had long term memory loss? Then it would be as I already described--his consciousness skips over everything that happened before the amnesia occurs. To him, life began in 1986.

But he was conscious before that so my statement that if you get amnesia at T1 in the future then you can't be consciousness now is in error, right? Wrong. He may been conscious before but to his consciousness as it is, he still can't remember it. He still doesn't notice becoming conscious until T1 or later. That he must remember at some point in the future is unprovable in the case of brain damage because the brain was damaged. Maybe in the next life, the recollections of these memories will come back him in disjointed bits and pieces.

Consciousness is unaffected and timeless. It works as well as it ever did after the brain damage except the brain doesn't work right anymore. This is no different than energy working the same as ever even though the muscles it is being focused through are racked with MS or something.

So if you're shot in the head and you're brain dead, it would be like death if it extinguished consciousness, you'd have no ability to recollect or re-live and it's as though you never existed.

But other people would remember you and have memories of you.

But that's their consciousness not yours. Yours never existed as far as you are concerned. Effectively, there is no "you." But maybe you'll remember things in the next life in bits and pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM

"the greatest hoax on earth"counters dawkins book point by point.the author-johnathan sarfati-is a scientist who BTW is a former australian chess champion .i would love to see him take on mr dawkins in debate but i doubt it will happen!.                         i feel some sympathy for josep.we all speak from our limitations but was half pleased by the admission that evolutionists adhere to their doctrine for not entirely science reasons-if i understand you correctly josep.to those alleging macro evoluton as established fact, to me illustrates the truth of the above book title. dogmatism on both sides?it seems the most ardent evoluttionist will admit some possibility of God-as long as he needed evolution to create us ,though dawkins has been critical of theologians who compromise what the bible plainly states!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

///Lamarck apparently bypassed any genetic information which was not available at the time of his suppositions.///

Apparently?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM

///Incidentally, Darwin didn't "teach" anything. ///

No kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM

///"Cell biology has more in common with the ideas of Lemarck than Darwin."

Not true. Evolution was presented as a dramatically different idea when it was presented. Studies of DNA and RNA confirm Darwin's great theorum. It's too bad he didn't live to see them materialize.///

Well, you'll have to take that up with Dr. Bruce Lipton. I'm not a biologist"

"Interestingly, Lemarck's hypothesis about the mechanisms of evolution conform to modern cell biologists' understanding of how immune systems adapt to their environment as described above."

As for the people insisting those charts I posted aren't ladders--it was the very thing I was describing earlier in this thread that you insisted was not true. It was these so-called human ancestors that we already discussed as having left no evolutionary trends. Now you're saying it is true except for one guy who took a more novel tack by saying my posting these charts was taking them out of context.

But have it your way. They're not ladders--they're charts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mr Happy
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Pick one, enjoy!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 11:57 AM

mp,

Dawkin's newest book is a must read for anyone who gives any credence at all to the Creationist theory. Also, he does always stick to science. The fact is he believes that
science and religion are at odds with each other is to my mind indisputable. Any criticism of religion will be perceived by religious people as an "attack" and this is a misinterpretation of Dawkins and his intent. The "attackers" are the defensive religionists
who probably doubt their own beliefs deep down so find it necessary to accuse those who reject their claims as "attackers". No one is being attacked here. Maybe you could make the argument that outmoded ideas of religion which have no basis in reality are being "attacked" in the same way that drug addiction or prostitution is being "attacked". But this has nothing to do with personal attacks on any one. This idea of "attacking" is a specious argument that begs the question and is an ad hominem as well.

I personally know a lot of religious people and wouldn't dream of attacking them in any way however I don't agree with their religious views. Many are fine and decent people in my book and I respect some and love others. This is not a war about people. It's a war of ideas and should remain on that level otherwise the discussion degenerates into name-calling. It is unfortunately a war that is instigated by religious people in power who want to enforce their ideas on everyone else. National Day of Prayer for example by the US Senate and Congress. What was Billy Graham doing advising presidents? His son is now an advisor to the Tea Party. BTW, take "god" out of the Pledge of Allegiance since this discriminates against non-believers. Take it off of our coins, as well.

"Cell biology has more in common with the ideas of Lemarck than Darwin."

Not true. Evolution was presented as a dramatically different idea when it was presented. Studies of DNA and RNA confirm Darwin's great theorum. It's too bad he didn't live to see them materialize.

Lamarck apparently bypassed any genetic information which was not available at the time of his suppositions. Now, with knowledge of genetics, Lamarck's theories are disqualified. The stretching of giraffe's necks have to do with genetics, not totally environmental factors.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 09:33 AM

"If we humans evolved from apes,
Why on earth are there living apes?"

If we humans evolved from bacteria, why on earth are there living bacteria?

Dumbo.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 07:27 AM

1+1=3 is a well-known phenomenon to listeners to The Archers. Whenever two characters are having a conversation, a third person will always arrive unexpectedly and sidetrack the chatter.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 09:14 PM

Just as a passing amusement -

The integers are -
1
1+1
1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
etc.

Clearly, this would become cumbersome. A convention has arisen to substitute symbols for each integer such that -

1+1=2
1+1+1=3
1+1+1+1=4
11+1+1+1=5
etc.

If we state that -

1+1=3, then there are two possibilities. 1) we are defining a new representation of numbers in which 1+1=3 is true or 2) we are making a statement under the accepted convention.

If 1) nobody who isn't familiar with the new representation is going to know what you mean.
If 2) then the statement is easily disproved by substituting back 3=1+1+1 giving -

1+1=1+1+1

which reduces to 0=1. A contradiction proving that the statement was false.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM

As Smokey said, those are not true 'ladder' charts.... they 'indicate' the best current guesses, given the sparsity of archeological evidence. Anyone who looks at one and suggests or believes that "science is sure it was that way" mistakes how science works.
And if those who made those charts think that way, they will likely have to eat one of those charts some day.
The charts and evidence ARE getting closer...I remember when Piltdown Man was still taken seriously, and I have seen the TV documentaries on evolution and cosmology revised over & over just in the last 20 years.

Sadly, I have not seen theology change much in that time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 08:17 PM

Well Josep, Lamarck was a fine fellow whose ideas contributed greatly to the debate on evolution, but his notions were comprehensively superseded by Wallace's and Darwin's. His proposition about how traits are passed on has been comprehensively debunked, and it's worth remembering that he believed in spontaneous generation and alchemy. I've said it before and I'll say it again: your understanding of evolutionary theory is very shaky, and you really need to go off and read a good book about it. On The Origin of Species would be a good start. Incidentally, Darwin didn't "teach" anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM

Those are not ladders, they are diagrams based on known archaeological findings which you have removed from their original context.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM

"If we humans evolved from apes,
Why on earth are there living apes?" (from Paradigms).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:25 PM

ladder 5

And so on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:24 PM

ladder 3

ladder 4

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM

ladder1


ladder 2

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:56 PM

///Well I have worked in science (as a science teacher), and I can assure you that only dolts teach evolution as a ladder. Homo erectus, etc. and modern humans have a common ancestor. The genus Homo and the genus Pan, to which chimps and bonobos belong, also have a common ancestor, but you have to go back a little further. And so on.///

I found a chart that shows that H. sapiens descended from H. ergaster. It's still being taught. Maybe you should correct them.

///This is the Darwinian model for evolution and it has been overwhelmingly shown to be true. Darwin's contemporary detractors tried to pin ladder-evolution on him, just as the Daily Mail would have done had Darwin been here today. At least one cartoon of the time depicted Darwin as half-monkey, half-man. Contemporary science journalism was even worse than religion when it came to misrepresenting Darwin. But Darwin never subscribed to this ridiculous ladder idea. Not once, ever.///

Whatever Darwin taught, he's overrated. Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck is the man who actually came up with evolution 50 years before Darwin and he was likely more on target. He said evolution was based on "instructive" cooperation. Cell biology has more in common with the ideas of Lemarck than Darwin.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:17 PM

Ron wroite "The main problem with this thread originates in-- surprise-- the title.

Words mean something.   Delusion according to my dictionary:   'false, persistent belief'.

That's the crux.   The word 'false' conveys certainty.   There is no certainty in this question. Therefore this language--the very title of the book, and of the thread--is inflammatory. As are remarks like 'imaginary friend'.

Even to those of us who are not religious but are willing to admit the existence of God is an open question." [unquote Ron]




[quote Steve, a week ago] Ron: "But "delusion" goes beyond this. Dictionary: delusion: a "false persistent belief"

It therefore states that anybody who believes in God is dead wrong."

Steve: No it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says he is not certain that God doesn't exist. The delusion refers to the whole world of belief, with all its ceremony and trappings and elaborate "theology", that revolves around a being whose probability of existence is vanishingly small as measured on any rational scale.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:08 PM

Well I have worked in science (as a science teacher), and I can assure you that only dolts teach evolution as a ladder. Homo erectus, etc. and modern humans have a common ancestor. The genus Homo and the genus Pan, to which chimps and bonobos belong, also have a common ancestor, but you have to go back a little further. And so on. This is the Darwinian model for evolution and it has been overwhelmingly shown to be true. Darwin's contemporary detractors tried to pin ladder-evolution on him, just as the Daily Mail would have done had Darwin been here today. At least one cartoon of the time depicted Darwin as half-monkey, half-man. Contemporary science journalism was even worse than religion when it came to misrepresenting Darwin. But Darwin never subscribed to this ridiculous ladder idea. Not once, ever.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:06 PM

"which by its very nature"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 02:27 PM

I've never worked in science. I've worked technical fields most of my adult life. I have never been a scientist. You have to be a certain type of person to survive in a university setting. My brother is good at it but I'm not. I have a brother and nephews and a niece who are all degreed biologists but I am but a lowly technician. I don't even work in a nuclear physics related area anymore. Now it's mechanical engineering for the military.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 02:23 PM

I always thought 'ladder evolution' was the simplistic impression that was generally formed by those who had never really thought about or been taught evolution. Any fool can see that it couldn't be so, but one has to actually bother thinking about it for two minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM

Science still teaches "ladder evolution" of the human race

To paraphrase Smokey, bollocks. It doesn't. Eveolution has no hierarchy; survival is the only criterion. In many ways we're failed bacteria, in that in order to survive we had to erect a whole pile of structures that they have got on happily without for a few billion years, and the way we're going they'll outlast us by the same margin.

josep, you claim to be some sort of scientist, so your ignorance of almost all science is disturbing. Are universities even worse than they were back in the day?

Oh, and 1066. My name's Norman.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM

///josep-apologies for not fully representing your views though that does not invalidate my post i trust.christians also pay tax and they dont think creation is bad science.///

As theory, it isn't science at all. As practice, it's bad science--atrocious really. Creationism has never proven anything. At best, it pokes a few holes in science but we could have done that without an erroneous belief system to go with it. Science doesn't know everything--how could it? No shame in that. That shame is when people who embrace science treat it with the same attitude of inerrancy that religious people treat their scriptures or clergy.

///as i pointed out before qualified scientists represent both sides of the debate.the presuppositions determine interpretation of the data.obviously christian fundamentalist would tend to be upfront on their worldview but occasionally even atheist scientists have admitted to embracing evolution because the alternative is unacepptable to them-not because its provable.details available at creation.com.///

I accept evolution but I don't believe that science has explained human origins worth a crap. I'll state it up front--I don't believe we descended from H. habilis or H. ergaster or H. erectus. Those were offshoot of the same tree we sprouted from. There's lots of anomalies out there that science can't and doesn't try to explain and I find that troubling.

It has nothing to do with science--it's purely political. Science still teaches "ladder evolution" of the human race not because it really believes it but because to deny it is to give ammo to the creationists. The danger is that what does science do if a whole new scenario emerges that is undeniably true and it trashes the current view they have been swearing up and down is true? Suppose, for example, that we should learn that the human race is far, far older than science officially allows for and reached shocking heights of technological prowess long before science says it was possible that human beings could have walked this planet? It doesn't hurt the creationist view which doesn't prove anything anyway but it will destroy the current view science puts forth as the official version of "the way it is." And then it becomes a credibility issue and and funding issue.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM

Maybe you should have said all that at the beginning - your liberal use of the word 'prove' has been a little misleading to say the least, and in my opinion your logic and reasoning leaves a lot to be desired. However, you are probably more interesting than WAV's poems.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM

///No need to explain it over and over - once will do. It's not a matter of me not accepting it - if that was the case I wouldn't be asking you to explain it. If you are right about this, I want to know, but I also want to be certain.///

There is no certainty here. There's no way to prove empirically that consciousness survives the death of the body so I have relied on reason instead and tempered it with quantum physics where it clarifies the points of the argument. But because something is logical doesn't mean it's true. We simply don't have a lot to work with so we have to take educated guesses based on our present experience.

So my argument has to be taken with a grain of salt. You just can't throw all your belief in it and I would never want you to. My point is, because it's logical, it's worth considering over purely religious dogma or knee-jerk atheism that can't think past "death is final and life is a pointless joke." One thing that strikes me hard about near-death experiences is not seeing the light tunnel and all that--most people don't see anything. But what most of them also say is that when they were in the process of dying, they felt terrible regret that they didn't do more with their lives. So it's best not to waste your life poring over old translated writings you've only been taught to interpret superficially or deciding nothing is worth the effort because you lose it all in the end. You will take something with you--and you'd best be sure it isn't useless baggage.

Learn and do as much as you can.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:51 PM

///The problem here is that Josep is basing his arguments on some pretty "out there", but extremely useful, quantum physics.///

This is why I wish I didn't drag QM into this. This argument is NOT based on quantum physics. Quantum physics just happens to support it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM

///PROOF:
Assume eternity has an end:
a. But we know memory eventually becomes static and unchanging--the story becomes set, so to speak. And we know all sensations dwindle to zero eventually. Nothing changes for the rest of time and since time is characterized by change, time has ended.
b. But eternity has no end so there must be some memory modification and sensations not at zero.

Oi vey.

josep, I suggest that you take a short course in elementary logic.///

That was a typo. The assumption was supposed to read "Assume eternity has NO end." I posted this yesterday and for some reason it didn't stay up. Must have forgotten to put my fucking name on it some pain-in-the-ass thing like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM

All this is fascinating but bears an amazing resemblance to "angels on a pin." As Lox has pointed out, it proves nothing.


We are talking about something which is by its very nature is unprovable.

The main problem with this thread originates in-- surprise-- the title.

Words mean something.   Delusion according to my dictionary:   "false, persistent belief".

That's the crux.   The word "false" conveys certainty.   There is no certainty in this question. Therefore this language--the very title of the book, and of the thread--is inflammatory. As are remarks like "imaginary friend".

Even to those of us who are not religious but are willing to admit the existence of God is an open question.

So the question becomes:   are Mudcat atheists willing to concede that these are the wrong words to use--for several reasons?

If they are not willing to do so, that tells us all we need to know about them--and their striking similarity, in that event, to religious fundamentalists.   Both being equally desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 10:47 AM

Josep:

Your explanations of late are much easier to follow than they were earlier. Thanks for the extra effort.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM

I don't care whether he's using quantum theory or sudoku. What bit of that can be construed as an argument at all is simply begging the question.