Quote:
True, but I don't see how this answers my post. I didn't mean to say that we didn't have a healthy debate or that he is not eloquent or respectful. One of his links was a mistake, in my view, and I pointed to that, but that does not make him unworthy of debate. I have made similar (or perhaps worse) mistakes often enough in debates here. And while I don't agree with his ideas, I don't want to shut him up or so (as long a it is within the rules of the board wrt religion and so on, but that goes for everyone).

Sticks: was my post too personal? It wasn't intended that way, but I think it is a normal interest to know if you play the devil's advocate or not. You don't have to answer that of course, but I see no harm in the question. IF something else offended you, please say so (here or in PM).

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Works for me. Whatever his personal stance, I enjoy the way Sticks presents his POV, and we need well-formed arguments from both sides. It's sickening to have just the childish "don't trounce on my religion- it should be taught in biology class", and "evolution is perfect- there is no other expanation; shut up" schools. And I've made mistakes too- or at least the mods thought so .

It was not because I was offended that I suggested that this thread be closed down.

The original poster started this thread to put forward his hypothesis that the Genesis account can be shoe-horned into evolutionary theory. After stating his opening case, and then making one further post, he seems to have left the field, and we have all been arguing around in circles since.

In trying to provide evidence for our respective positions, occasionaly, self included, we have inadvertently trod on people's toes. It has also been pointed out that we may have infracted the no religion rule, so perhaps it is time to call it a day on this thread, especially as it has strayed from the original posting of trying to prove that Genesis can be made to fit into the evolution scenario, something I would expect that both those from the evolutionist camp and those from the creationist camp will agree, can not be done.

Have we achieved anything?

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I dunno, I got to get out some aggression :P I feel better now.

I also learned that a town was created on the basis of atheism. That's pretty cool.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

I'm still not convinced of this one. Though I'm not all that familiar with most animal behaviour studies I was under the impression that it was still debatable about chimps showing true signs of self awareness and their own mortality. Recognizing death in others, and impending death in them is different than the realization of your own mortality. I agree that taking to the extreme, as failure to perform 'cermonial burial', I've seen this argument used to argue for YEC, "we'd naturally find more human remains if they had been here for so many thousand of years and WERE OF COURSE buring their dead the whole time." If you had some site to point me toward?

The reason I stick to this, is all of your other points I've witnessed IMO with either my own pets or just animal watching. But the question for most religions is not why are we here, but what happens after death. It is the sense of self and self mortality that brings about the question in ones own mind about after death, and that brings about religion.

__________________
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.
--Isaac Asimov

You know very well that's an unfair question. You might as well have asked him to prove that fluffy pink unicorns don't exist...

While there's always the possibility that we could be wrong (and some animal somewhere has asked that question) it is certainly not "incredible hubris" to assume that no animal is capable of asking "why are we here?". Your examples of "human-like" behaviour notwithstanding, there is no solid evidence that other species can think in such complex and abstract ways.

Even if a single species can do all the things you listed (and understand the concept of fairness, as I mentioned in my previous post) it's still a long, long way to from being able to question their own purpose in life. I doubt you would find even the most dedicated and sympathetic of animal intelligence researchers argue for that.

While I am always wary of dealing in absolutes, I am equally as wary of treating highly improbable events and outcomes on an equal footing as probable or merely possible ones. As it stands the lack of evidence for animal self-awareness (to the level of being able to ask "why am I here?") would indicate that it is highly improbable that it exists.

BTW: This is nothing to do with assuming that human beings are "divinely unique" (I certainly don't believe that). I think it would be great to be able to debate the meaning of life with other species. But, you can only go as far as the scientific evidence will take you, and sadly, it appears that we will be continuing that debate alone for the forseeable future.

Question for moderators: It appears you have graciously allowed this thread to wander far and wide, allowing us to carry it where it tends as respectfully as possible even though it no longer resembles the original post. Do you intend to continue to allow this? I, for one, don't see a problem with it; I think most instances of offense in this thread have been handled well except for the one very early on where y'all stepped in.

Rephrased: Can we keep playing? Or is it time to come inside now?

__________________
Q. How do you play religious roulette?
A. Stand in a circle and blaspheme and see who gets struck by lightning first.

I disagree. The papers and literature do exist for the majority of the examples against uniquely "human" traits and abilities. My point was that since we don't really have a method to ascertain if and how much other higher animals have questioned their own existence, how can we say we're the only ones ? Again, one method of though is exclusive and absolute; the other is inclusive and open-ended. While I can't prove dolphins ponder their relationship with the dolphin version of Jesus Christ (sadly I don't speak their language), it IS hubris to assume they've never done so.

I was never advocating that animals have done this. Please re-read my earlier post. What I listed were not examples of "human-like" behavior (btw- if a large group of animals all do it, why is it "human-like"), but of examples where the Conventional Wisdom has been proven wrong.

You're willing to take that plunge ? Never, no way, not possible- forget it, man is unique in this ? The examples I've given have been and are being backed up by observational (behavioral) and chemical science. By taking such a stance, you are conceding that yeah- maybe human civilization was wrong to assume animals lived by instinct alone, albeit with a small amount of altruism for the sake of continuing the species. Such a stance also assumes that while the beliefs that animals couldn't learn, couldn't speak, couldn't coordinate complex tasks, and couldn't feel pain & suffering have been disproven- that THIS time we're right. So we have gorillas that have vast vocabularies of sign language, chimps who hunt in complex cooperative teams, and dogs that suffer depression and are cured by prescription drugs. But you can say with certainty that they definitely 100% do not think past death or of a meaningful place in the world ?

You are now discounting the "merely possible" ones. As for evidence, with the examples I've given, most of the studies have come in the last 50 years, which is but a moment in the great history of the human experience. We're starting to look harder and in different ways. Columbus was said to be insane for such a belief to sail west to get to the East. Galileo was killed for putting forth such a highly improbable notion. And since it's not too off-topic, African blacks were taken and kept as slaves in the United States less than 150 years ago using that same, "they aren't capable of thinking that way" logic.

I agree whole-heartedly with that. There's little evidence to say so otherwise, just as you've stated. It's the same reason I don't believe that an invisible man in the sky created it all in a week, a few thousand years ago- no one's proved it to me yet. It's twice as difficult to believe when the same guys telling today you to replace school-taught biology with theology, are the same guys who told you yesterday to kill all those <insert "other" religion here> guys, because they worship the wrong god.

But I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.

While I may not FULLY agree with Huevos Grandes, he DOES have a good point.

I severely doubt that animals question "why are we here?", and I also highly doubt that they have developed religion.

However, to say that they definitely don't... well, he's got a point there.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

Not trying to speak for the others, but I've been out of the loop for the last week or so and just resumed posting this morning.

This is quite an important topic and I really do not wish to see the discussion curtailed. There are several transgressions that need to be addressed though, and unfortunately I don't have the time to do so right this minute.

I will temporarily lock the thread until review has been completed.

Apologies, it took me longer to review and re-open the thread than I'd planned. I will address a number of things here chronologically with one exception: please remember that religious discussions fall outside of this forum's scope. I was sorely tempted to split or remove posts #216 through #240 -- they should have been constructed much more carefully and on-topic. I will again quote the FAQ:

12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

Partisan political debate is unwelcome and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.

It is of paramount importance to understand what evolution is as well as what it is not. Evo has nothing to do with religion, morality, Stalin, Hitler, nor the NSDAP. If debate arises again concerning religion vs. morality, any such posts will be deleted and posters formally warned for rules violation. Stay on topic and within the forum guidelines.

Now:

Sticks, the Genesis account has no business being shoehorned into evolution. I realize you're attempting to reconcile issues of faith and science and wish you the best in that regard. However I must say that if you desire to learn about science, evolution included, please do so by consulting scientific resources, not those authored by religious apologetics who deliberately misrepresent the subject matter. Spend some time on Talk Origins and the NCSE. Perhaps pages like this may offer further assistance.

Regarding altruism, please see here and here.

Lonewulf, you never should have submitted this post nor the follow-up. I appreciate what you were attempting to convey, as misconceptions abound in such topics, however you went about it in entirely the wrong manner. I'm obligated to suspend your account for 24 hours for violation of civility & decorum rules. This forum is not a place to release aggression nor hurl vitriol at other posters. If you have a disagreement with someone, take it to PM, e-mail, or elsewhere to work it through if desired. If you're weary or ill-tempered, don't post; take a break and come back later. This came as an unforutnate result of the thread straying horribly off-topic and the mod & admin staff being quite busy, so I apologize for the retroactive disciplinary action. The rules still apply, though.

Mike T, a one-week suspension for FAQ violation from posting an anti-religious rant should have sent you a clear signal, but instead you submitted this post -- which is not only incorrect but begging for further disciplinary action. Let me make this perfectly clear: if you do not abide by the forum rules including the section I've reiterated above in this post, you will be permanently banned. Got it?

The thread has been re-opened, and please abide by the conditions expressed above. Know that this topic will be diligently monitored, and proceed wisely.

edited to fix grammar

I know I'm really asking for it by asking this question. Understand I'm asking respectfully, with an honest desire to know the answer.

If Sticks is being corrected for trying to "shoehorn the Genesis account into evolution", what was the OP trying to do with the first post of this thread?

The original post was purely theological, with no scientific content, references or questions. What, exactly, are we supposed to discuss in the newly reopened thread?

I won't take offense if you toss me a temporary ban for these questions. I'm not trying to be hostile; I think I'm just clueless considering your statements, the forum rules, and the OP that was allowed to begin with. The OP himself even stated that the point he was trying to make was that if you want to argue for a creationist viewpoint you need to do so with a proper understanding of the religious documents you use as sources. Re-read that last sentence so I don't have to repeat it for emphasis. This thread was created to tell creationists how to use their religious documents properly when presenting a religious argument, and the entire OP was an effort to push one religious interpretation of one religious document to support one religious argument in a debate about one religious viewpoint in the creation discussion. I'm not sure what the link to evolution is supposed to be. What, exactly, did evolution have to do with it?

Would you be kind enough to illustrate a scientific response that would be suitable?

__________________
Q. How do you play religious roulette?
A. Stand in a circle and blaspheme and see who gets struck by lightning first.

It is also significant to note that I'm the one who started the whole source-of-altruism thing, so perhaps a ban is in order even if I am asking my questions respectfully. Or not. I'm fine either way.

__________________
Q. How do you play religious roulette?
A. Stand in a circle and blaspheme and see who gets struck by lightning first.

This Debate has hit the newspapers lately in Kansas. As the Board of education has made it mandatory to teach creationalism along with Evolution.
I find this troubling as a certain political entity will now be confusing the young with Pseudo-Science. Its hard enough to teach science.

Ah, we're back!

Regarding other species being able to ask themselves "why are we here?"...

I appear not to be getting my point across very well. I am not stating that such a thing is impossible, I am saying that it is extremely unlikely (as do most, if not all serious researchers in the field, I think you'll find) and therefore it's not worth serious time and money being invested in it -- but let me explain further...

It is very important to distinguish between the "possible" and the "extremely unlikely". We do it all the time. And it's a very important tool for scientists. It's called making a judgement call.

Since this is an astronomy board, I will use the Mars Face as an example. Is it impossible that aliens really did design and build the Face on Mars? No, it's not impossible. given that we haven't landed next to it and done every conceivable test on it, we cannot completely rule it out. However, I would submit that, given that the available evidence indicates that natural processes is the much more likely cause, it makes alien involvement highly unlikely (not impossible, just very very unlikely). So NASA did the right thing by ignoring calls to spend billions of dollars on something that would almost certainly have been a waste of time, even though if they were proved wrong, it would have been the discovery of the millennium.

If NASA went chasing every one-in-a-million possibility they would almost certainly end up with nothing to show for all the time and public money invested into it. They would rightly be defunded and disbanded.

The same goes for animal research. Time and money is going into areas that are producing results (sign language, fairness, etc). It's not impossible that the level of self-awareness to ponder the meaning of life is there, but since the evidence does not point in that direction it would be a waste of time to start spending lots of time and effort there on the slight offchance we were wrong. Now, it's possible that as research in related fields advances, evidence will be uncovered which points to that higher level of awareness than previously anticipated. We would then have the justification and roadmap for further research. Until then, we would just be wandering in the wilderness.

Again, I am not against the whole concept of animal self-awareness. But from what I see and hear, it's really just not worth worrying about at this point in time - it's just not that likely - and I think the scientists in this field are right to focus on more productive lines of research.

Finally Huevos, your example with the black African slaves is really a red herring. While the scientific process is only as good as its practitioners, you cannot compare the judgement of today's scientists with the prejudices of slave owners back then. Any simple scientific inquiry into the intelligence of slaves would have uncovered the truth, but it was in no one's interest (except the slaves, of course) to try.

Your knowledge of this is apparently as extensive as your knowledge of Apollo.

First, it's "creationism," not "creationalism."

Second, teaching creationism in science classes is illegal in public schools in the United States, as it violates the separation of church and state.

Third, they tried. They failed. They got voted out of office.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Suggesting that yourself be banned.... now that's a new one!

I am simply responding to my perception that Sticks, who has been respectful throughout this discussion, was banned in part for bringing up a topic that I brought up, and for following the discussion into religious areas when I couldn't come up with any real scientific approaches myself. My source-of-altruism questions were, in large part, because it allowed a scientific approach to be taken - the OP allowed no such approach.

If the offense is worth being banned for, then I am the guilty party, not Sticks. That's all.

__________________
Q. How do you play religious roulette?
A. Stand in a circle and blaspheme and see who gets struck by lightning first.

I understood.... and was amused, that's all. Doesn't happen very often (self-banning that is).

Actually it was the Dover, PA school board that got voted out. Kansas is an entirely different matter where their school board has basicly redefined science in their education policy, making a way for Intelligent Design to get in.

The thread-starter was corrected back on the first page, and he clarified his intent here. I think the nature of the OP caused confusion due to being quite poorly assembled. My intent was to offer Sticks advice.

There has been discussion of substance since the OP despite the tangental series of problematic posts, which is why the thread has remained open.

No offense taken whatsoever -- your comments are inquisitive and polite, far from hostile. Your inquiry is not only welcome but perfectly acceptable. We certainly don't issue account suspensions for posing legitimate questions.

A fine question, asked by others on the very first page. kenneth rodman never addressed the matter.

To what in particular, the OP?

The introduction of altruism wasn't the problem, and there are legitimate evolutionary topics associated which I linked to previously. We ran into problems when that concept derailed into a discussion of religion and morality. Not your fault.

Sticks was not banned, nor his account suspended. Lonewulf earned a one-day account suspension for his impolite posts directed toward Sticks.

In 1999, the Kansas BOE voted to remove evolution from the curriculum, 6-4. In 2000, 3 of 4 of the BOE members who had supported that move were defeated in the primary election. The new BOE returned evolution to the classroom, 7-3.

The next election changed the BOE make-up. It is this Board that injected Intelligent Design (not Creationism... everyone knows that ID is not Creationism, even in disguise... right?).

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Yeah, I could've SO put my posts in better light. The point I was making was good, but the ends didn't justify the means.

Here's hoping I won't slip up again.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

Thank you, Wolverine, for clarifying what you could. I obviously misread re: Sticks. I'm not sure how I misread after multiple readings, but it's certain I did so. Yes, my question about illustrating a suitable scientific response was about the OP.

__________________
Q. How do you play religious roulette?
A. Stand in a circle and blaspheme and see who gets struck by lightning first.

From the mentioned article:
Apparently the problems are: alcohol abuse, people having access to 'inappropriate books', spending time having fun (dancing), people having sexual relations without being married and abortion (due to the lack of contraceptive means).
Funny, but it seems to me that all this is happening today in every western town and some of these behaviours are today accepted as normal ones (as using contraceptives or having relationships and children whitout being married)...

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here, and maybe I skipped too many posts in this thread, but I believe most do indeed view ID as creationism in disguise. One problem is, there are so many different brands of creationism. The goalposts get moved around pretty quickly and sporadically. But ID is still (or has become), at this point, a political "movement" intent on breaching the line between "faith/belief" and science, especially evolutionary science. As such, it seems much like the now exposed "creation science" ploy that had the same intent.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

You're welcome. My response would be straightforward:

Evolution's validity rests firmly upon overwhelming supporting evidence. Forays into scripture or Biblical contradictions are neither required nor apporpriate for exploration of the subject -- particularly those introduced by kenneth rodman, as evolution bears no relation to religion and does not presume to explain the origins of the universe, the planet, nor life that of life arising from inorganic matter. In the simplest terms, evolution describes biological change over time.

What is telling for me about Intelligent Design is that although those actively promoting ID (i.e. the Discovery Institute, Behe, Dembski, et al) are disciplined and stay on message (about ID being nothing to do with religion), as soon as debate about ID escapes into the wild, it's patently obvious that for just about everybody else who believes in ID it is all about religion.

That is why they are waging a political campaign, and not using science to promote their cause. They know that there is widespread support for the idea of an intelligent designer out there in the general public since nearly half the general public still believes in biblical creationism.

The difficulty the DI is already having is that most of these people are honest about why they believe ID fits the facts as their religion sees it, and see no reason to cover that up. Indeed, some creationist organizations are highly critical of the DI, like Answers In Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research for not "standing up for the truth of creation".

Although the Discovery Institute was instrumental in the decision of the Dover School Board to introduce ID into the classroom, they beat a hasty retreat when they realized that they could not stop the board from overstepping the mark in their enthusiasm for getting religion back into the classroom.

In the long run, I don't think the creationist efforts in Kansas will have any more success. They may have crafted a more circumspect policy that avoids direct reference to ID, but the religious motivations of the board members are clear, and on record and that's a problem for the ID movement.