A few weeks ago, I discovered to my horror that at least one of my sisters is a creationist.

What is the best way to convince her of the theory of evolution by natural selection?
Or should I even try?

PS. I used to keep a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica article “geochronology” for this purpose. But that’s rather heavy reading.

refusé to engage

mollwollfumble said:

A few weeks ago, I discovered to my horror that at least one of my sisters is a creationist.

What is the best way to convince her of the theory of evolution by natural selection?
Or should I even try?

PS. I used to keep a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica article “geochronology” for this purpose. But that’s rather heavy reading.

Probably best not to try I reckon.

People do not believe in creationism because of logic or facts, they cling to it for other reasons. So trying to argue facts with them will not convince them, even if they concede the point and agree that you are probably right they won’t let go. you need to find out what is the driver behind adopting this stance, and question that. It is not that they are convinced by creationism per se, it is because creationism fulfills some other need they have.

you could become a creationist for the purposes of relating, there’s no shame in it, certainly no cause for horror

not a day goes by I don’t marvel at the lord’s grand work

mollwollfumble said:

A few weeks ago, I discovered to my horror that at least one of my sisters is a creationist.

What is the best way to convince her of the theory of evolution by natural selection?
Or should I even try?

PS. I used to keep a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica article “geochronology” for this purpose. But that’s rather heavy reading.

Just this morning I was reading the Engineers Australia discussion forum for the first time for several months, and read a discussion started by someone linking to a paper at a creationist site, which was basically saying that climate change is not a problem because of these pseudo-scientific reasons, which must be true because they are consistent with the Bible.

I was amazed how many people thought it was a good science-based argument.

What to do about it, I really don’t know.

Link to the creationist site:
https://creation.com/climate-change?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Climate+emergency%3F+Our+biblical+and+scientific+assessment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2020.11.30

transition said:

you could become a creationist for the purposes of relating, there’s no shame in it, certainly no cause for horror

not a day goes by I don’t marvel at the lord’s grand work

^

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

you could become a creationist for the purposes of relating, there’s no shame in it, certainly no cause for horror

not a day goes by I don’t marvel at the lord’s grand work

^

OK, but you can marvel at the lord’s grand work without being a creationist, and you can marvel at the grand work without believing in a Lord.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

you could become a creationist for the purposes of relating, there’s no shame in it, certainly no cause for horror

not a day goes by I don’t marvel at the lord’s grand work

^

OK, but you can marvel at the lord’s grand work without being a creationist, and you can marvel at the grand work without believing in a Lord.

Well if it wasn’t the Lord who’s work was it?
Contact tracing suggests that creator zero is the Lord but it might be a false positive.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

^

OK, but you can marvel at the lord’s grand work without being a creationist, and you can marvel at the grand work without believing in a Lord.

Well if it wasn’t the Lord who’s work was it?
Contact tracing suggests that creator zero is the Lord but it might be a false positive.

Well for a start, it might have been a Lady,
or a bot,
or an entity of indeterminate gender.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

you could become a creationist for the purposes of relating, there’s no shame in it, certainly no cause for horror

not a day goes by I don’t marvel at the lord’s grand work

^

OK, but you can marvel at the lord’s grand work without being a creationist, and you can marvel at the grand work without believing in a Lord.

you’re an evolutionist I gather, or just anti-creationist

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

^

OK, but you can marvel at the lord’s grand work without being a creationist, and you can marvel at the grand work without believing in a Lord.

you’re an evolutionist I gather, or just anti-creationist

If you must apply a label, I’d suggest:

“Someone who thinks it is extremely unlikely that the Universe was created by an intelligent entity for the benefit of the species Homo Sapiens on the planet Earth”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but you can marvel at the lord’s grand work without being a creationist, and you can marvel at the grand work without believing in a Lord.

you’re an evolutionist I gather, or just anti-creationist

If you must apply a label, I’d suggest:

“Someone who thinks it is extremely unlikely that the Universe was created by an intelligent entity for the benefit of the species Homo Sapiens on the planet Earth”.

what if the universe was brought into existence by an intelligent unknown whatever, and let to free run, would that count as creation?

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

you’re an evolutionist I gather, or just anti-creationist

If you must apply a label, I’d suggest:

“Someone who thinks it is extremely unlikely that the Universe was created by an intelligent entity for the benefit of the species Homo Sapiens on the planet Earth”.

what if the universe was brought into existence by an intelligent unknown whatever, and let to free run, would that count as creation?

It would be a creation, but not a creation by a Lord.

Creationists are stupid, so there’s probably not much you can do for them.

But you could try saying: The world studied by science is the world that’s actually there, usually called the natural world. The supernatural world isn’t actually there. It’s a product of the human imagination, and is classified as such by scientists who study human nature.

Bubblecar said:

Creationists are stupid, so there’s probably not much you can do for them.

But you could try saying: The world studied by science is the world that’s actually there, usually called the natural world. The supernatural world isn’t actually there. It’s a product of the human imagination, and is classified as such by scientists who study human nature.

fairly much everything is the work of imagination, apprehended and conceived by minds, all of minds representational efforts

it’s all made up, that’s what the computational thingy does, makes stuff up

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Creationists are stupid, so there’s probably not much you can do for them.

But you could try saying: The world studied by science is the world that’s actually there, usually called the natural world. The supernatural world isn’t actually there. It’s a product of the human imagination, and is classified as such by scientists who study human nature.

fairly much everything is the work of imagination, apprehended and conceived by minds, all of minds representational efforts

it’s all made up, that’s what the computational thingy does, makes stuff up

Scientific tools are designed to study what’s actually there. And scientific models of what’s actually there tend to be mathematical in nature, in search of accuracy. This is why physics and chemistry etc seem very “abstract” to people used to constructing models of their world out of words, and seeking meanings that reflect human experience and values etc.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Creationists are stupid, so there’s probably not much you can do for them.

But you could try saying: The world studied by science is the world that’s actually there, usually called the natural world. The supernatural world isn’t actually there. It’s a product of the human imagination, and is classified as such by scientists who study human nature.

fairly much everything is the work of imagination, apprehended and conceived by minds, all of minds representational efforts

it’s all made up, that’s what the computational thingy does, makes stuff up

Scientific tools are designed to study what’s actually there. And scientific models of what’s actually there tend to be mathematical in nature, in search of accuracy. This is why physics and chemistry etc seem very “abstract” to people used to constructing models of their world out of words, and seeking meanings that reflect human experience and values etc.

Logical and illogical thought are incompatible. Much like matter and anti-matter they do not mix without a great explosion.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you must apply a label, I’d suggest:

“Someone who thinks it is extremely unlikely that the Universe was created by an intelligent entity for the benefit of the species Homo Sapiens on the planet Earth”.

what if the universe was brought into existence by an intelligent unknown whatever, and let to free run, would that count as creation?

It would be a creation, but not a creation by a Lord.

And in the context of this thread, it’s worth adding that such a creation would not be in any way consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

what if the universe was brought into existence by an intelligent unknown whatever, and let to free run, would that count as creation?

It would be a creation, but not a creation by a Lord.

And in the context of this thread, it’s worth adding that such a creation would not be in any way consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

… which would be closer to the intended meaning with “in” inserted before “consistent”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you must apply a label, I’d suggest:

“Someone who thinks it is extremely unlikely that the Universe was created by an intelligent entity for the benefit of the species Homo Sapiens on the planet Earth”.

what if the universe was brought into existence by an intelligent unknown whatever, and let to free run, would that count as creation?

It would be a creation, but not a creation by a Lord.

Mary got up the duff by a chook. Lord Rooster.

Peak Warming Man said:

Well if it wasn’t the Lord who’s work was it?
Contact tracing suggests that creator zero is the Lord but it might be a false positive.

Not the Christian God, we know that much.

“If He exists the creator has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” – J.B.S. Haldane

In his writings, Haldane, who died in 1964, noted that there are 300,000 species of beetle and only 10,000 species of mammals.

I have found this cartoon on evolution that I downloaded (from xkcd?) some years ago.

I could turn it into a poster.

mollwollfumble said:

A few weeks ago, I discovered to my horror that at least one of my sisters is a creationist.

What is the best way to convince her of the theory of evolution by natural selection?
Or should I even try?

You could remind her that “we” also believed in Zeus at el
and that one day you’ll view belief in Jehovah as just as quaint.

…me just being a smart arse:
The only difference between the belief in ancient Greek gods
and the continued belief in THE Jewish God
is that Jehovah had a better lawyer

when a Bible thumper inquired of me;
“What are the odds of minerals & chemicals spontaneously combining to form Life?”
to which I replied;
“I should think a hellova lot better than some All-Seeing/All-Knowing/All-Powerful Being
spontaneously p0pping into BEING one morning, wouldn’t you agree?”

hee hee he never darkened my front porch again. “gee, was it sumpthin’ I sed?” /-8

mollwollfumble said:

I have found this cartoon on evolution that I downloaded (from xkcd?) some years ago.

I could turn it into a poster.

If you enlarge it enough to be read I want a copy.
I’m currently ensconced in a veritable nest of “True Believers”

GOD HELP ME!

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

what if the universe was brought into existence by an intelligent unknown whatever, and let to free run, would that count as creation?

It would be a creation, but not a creation by a Lord.

And in the context of this thread, it’s worth adding that such a creation would not be in any way consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution

regard consistency, I could argue an absence of a eugenics program is not consistent with biological evolution, and frankly I doubt it is, of course that would involve unnatural selection, but really what’s the difference with humans, of what’s natural and unnatural, I mean the dominance of culture, the force of culture makes that almost impossible to distinguish, if it can be at all

fairly much everybody on the planet is descended from a history involving shades of hereditarianism (even preceding any science of genes and genetics there were powerful notions with similar ends)

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I think the truth is most life starts with something unscientific, it’s called copulation, nobody is summoning their intellect for that moment of bliss that gets the job done

and at the end of the day what does the theory of evolution lend to, mostly, of common behaviors, you know if you viewed a lot of the Attenborough series on TV for example, what would be the simplest most common notions from that, legitimizing ideas, they’d be what?

would it affirm you’re a member of the dominant species on the planet?

is that so different to what religion does, the story of creation

>and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I don’t know about “arrogant” science types (science types tend to be quite humble compared with the Bible thumpers), but I for one view the indigenous creation stories as stories, and I don’t know of any indigenous people who expect me or anyone else to believe that they are literally true.

But many followers of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic creeds do insist that their creation stories are literally true, and even those who don’t take Genesis literally (such as Catholics) nonetheless insist that the universe was literally created somehow by the supernatural patriarch to whom they pray. The idea that such human imaginings should be seen as objectively true strikes me as being both very arrogant and very silly.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would be a creation, but not a creation by a Lord.

And in the context of this thread, it’s worth adding that such a creation would not be in any way consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution

regard consistency, I could argue an absence of a eugenics program is not consistent with biological evolution, and frankly I doubt it is, of course that would involve unnatural selection, but really what’s the difference with humans, of what’s natural and unnatural, I mean the dominance of culture, the force of culture makes that almost impossible to distinguish, if it can be at all

fairly much everybody on the planet is descended from a history involving shades of hereditarianism (even preceding any science of genes and genetics there were powerful notions with similar ends)

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I think the truth is most life starts with something unscientific, it’s called copulation, nobody is summoning their intellect for that moment of bliss that gets the job done

and at the end of the day what does the theory of evolution lend to, mostly, of common behaviors, you know if you viewed a lot of the Attenborough series on TV for example, what would be the simplest most common notions from that, legitimizing ideas, they’d be what?

would it affirm you’re a member of the dominant species on the planet?

is that so different to what religion does, the story of creation

Put simply evolution is the adaption to habitat. If you are successful in that regard you survive to pass your genes onto future generations, but if you cannot adapt, you die.

It’s more a concern that she and her husband are teachers. Religious teachers.

They teach creationism along with other biblical doctrine.

mollwollfumble said:

It’s more a concern that she and her husband are teachers. Religious teachers.

They teach creationism along with other biblical doctrine.

So, they teach at a religious school then?

If you ring PeterT Ministries On 1300CREATOR, remember it’s _not a TOLL FREE number, you’ll be put I touch with a personalised bible study instructor who can walk you through the TRUTH about this important subject.
And friend all donations to PeterT Ministries goes to drilling wells, curing aids and pox, big and small, in countries in Africa where the devil has control through corruption and communism.
Give what you can afford friend and be blessed.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And in the context of this thread, it’s worth adding that such a creation would not be in any way consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution

regard consistency, I could argue an absence of a eugenics program is not consistent with biological evolution, and frankly I doubt it is, of course that would involve unnatural selection, but really what’s the difference with humans, of what’s natural and unnatural, I mean the dominance of culture, the force of culture makes that almost impossible to distinguish, if it can be at all

fairly much everybody on the planet is descended from a history involving shades of hereditarianism (even preceding any science of genes and genetics there were powerful notions with similar ends)

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I think the truth is most life starts with something unscientific, it’s called copulation, nobody is summoning their intellect for that moment of bliss that gets the job done

and at the end of the day what does the theory of evolution lend to, mostly, of common behaviors, you know if you viewed a lot of the Attenborough series on TV for example, what would be the simplest most common notions from that, legitimizing ideas, they’d be what?

would it affirm you’re a member of the dominant species on the planet?

is that so different to what religion does, the story of creation

Put simply evolution is the adaption to habitat. If you are successful in that regard you survive to pass your genes onto future generations, but if you cannot adapt, you die.

>>I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution<<

We apply evolution at all times otherwise the habitat and its contents will kill us. We do not need to apply anything and science only provides understanding.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution

regard consistency, I could argue an absence of a eugenics program is not consistent with biological evolution, and frankly I doubt it is, of course that would involve unnatural selection, but really what’s the difference with humans, of what’s natural and unnatural, I mean the dominance of culture, the force of culture makes that almost impossible to distinguish, if it can be at all

fairly much everybody on the planet is descended from a history involving shades of hereditarianism (even preceding any science of genes and genetics there were powerful notions with similar ends)

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I think the truth is most life starts with something unscientific, it’s called copulation, nobody is summoning their intellect for that moment of bliss that gets the job done

and at the end of the day what does the theory of evolution lend to, mostly, of common behaviors, you know if you viewed a lot of the Attenborough series on TV for example, what would be the simplest most common notions from that, legitimizing ideas, they’d be what?

would it affirm you’re a member of the dominant species on the planet?

is that so different to what religion does, the story of creation

Put simply evolution is the adaption to habitat. If you are successful in that regard you survive to pass your genes onto future generations, but if you cannot adapt, you die.

>>I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution<<

We apply evolution at all times otherwise the habitat and its contents will kill us. We do not need to apply consider evolution to survive and science only provides understanding.

transition said:

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I don’t. Things like airliners not being allowed to overfly certain salt lakes at 35,000 feet because it might upset some lake spirit is plain bullshit to me and should not be considered in planning flight paths.

party_pants said:

transition said:

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I don’t. Things like airliners not being allowed to overfly certain salt lakes at 35,000 feet because it might upset some lake spirit is plain bullshit to me and should not be considered in planning flight paths.

Is that a thing?

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Put simply evolution is the adaption to habitat. If you are successful in that regard you survive to pass your genes onto future generations, but if you cannot adapt, you die.

>>I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution<<

We apply evolution at all times otherwise the habitat and its contents will kill us. We do not need to apply consider evolution to survive and science only provides understanding.

>>regard consistency, I could argue an absence of a eugenics program is not consistent with biological evolution, and frankly I doubt it is, of course that would involve unnatural selection, but really what’s the difference with humans, of what’s natural and unnatural, I mean the dominance of culture, the force of culture makes that almost impossible to distinguish, if it can be at all<<

There is no such thing as unnatural selection, evolution is wholly governed by what genes are passed onto the next generation, so if the couple are compatible or desirable to mate, it is all that matters. The same thing applies that if healthy offspring are suited to the environment they will survive and if not, they will die or not breed.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would be a creation, but not a creation by a Lord.

And in the context of this thread, it’s worth adding that such a creation would not be in any way consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution

regard consistency, I could argue an absence of a eugenics program is not consistent with biological evolution, and frankly I doubt it is, of course that would involve unnatural selection, but really what’s the difference with humans, of what’s natural and unnatural, I mean the dominance of culture, the force of culture makes that almost impossible to distinguish, if it can be at all

fairly much everybody on the planet is descended from a history involving shades of hereditarianism (even preceding any science of genes and genetics there were powerful notions with similar ends)

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I think the truth is most life starts with something unscientific, it’s called copulation, nobody is summoning their intellect for that moment of bliss that gets the job done

and at the end of the day what does the theory of evolution lend to, mostly, of common behaviors, you know if you viewed a lot of the Attenborough series on TV for example, what would be the simplest most common notions from that, legitimizing ideas, they’d be what?

would it affirm you’re a member of the dominant species on the planet?

is that so different to what religion does, the story of creation

I’m afraid I don’t see any point in responding to any of that.

You just seem to be wanting to create an argument about evolution for some reason.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

>>I mean seriously who goes around applying a theory of evolution to everything around them, every moment of their day, few i’d expect, which raises the question of what committed evolutionists are doing. I’m guessing at some point, if asked, they’d point to biological evolution being slow and cultural evolution being dominant, and the progress of science being part of that latter, a substantive progressive attribute of culture, providing cultural evolution<<

We apply evolution at all times otherwise the habitat and its contents will kill us. We do not need to apply consider evolution to survive and science only provides understanding.

>>regard consistency, I could argue an absence of a eugenics program is not consistent with biological evolution, and frankly I doubt it is, of course that would involve unnatural selection, but really what’s the difference with humans, of what’s natural and unnatural, I mean the dominance of culture, the force of culture makes that almost impossible to distinguish, if it can be at all<<

There is no such thing as unnatural selection, evolution is wholly governed by what genes are passed onto the next generation, so if the couple are compatible or desirable to mate, it is all that matters. The same thing applies that if healthy offspring are suited to the environment they will survive and if not, they will die or not breed.

>>and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that<<

These days scientist are far less dismissive of Aboriginal concerns if only to be permitted to continue their studies. Aborigines too in most situations realise and accept science and appreciate their stories are just that stories, but still bear relevance to their land, the education of it, features and seasons that permit a mental image as song lines illustrate. Things have changed or evolved over time and the people adapted to a changing understanding, but do not want to throw the children out with the bathwater.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

transition said:

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I don’t. Things like airliners not being allowed to overfly certain salt lakes at 35,000 feet because it might upset some lake spirit is plain bullshit to me and should not be considered in planning flight paths.

Is that a thing?

Yeah. In WA it is. Certain salt lakes are off-limits for everything, boating, fishing, camping, even flying over them. For fear of disturbing evil spirits that live below the lake.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

>>regard consistency, I could argue an absence of a eugenics program is not consistent with biological evolution, and frankly I doubt it is, of course that would involve unnatural selection, but really what’s the difference with humans, of what’s natural and unnatural, I mean the dominance of culture, the force of culture makes that almost impossible to distinguish, if it can be at all<<

There is no such thing as unnatural selection, evolution is wholly governed by what genes are passed onto the next generation, so if the couple are compatible or desirable to mate, it is all that matters. The same thing applies that if healthy offspring are suited to the environment they will survive and if not, they will die or not breed.

>>and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that<<

These days scientist are far less dismissive of Aboriginal concerns if only to be permitted to continue their studies. Aborigines too in most situations realise and accept science and appreciate their stories are just that stories, but still bear relevance to their land, the education of it, features and seasons that permit a mental image as song lines illustrate. Things have changed or evolved over time and the people adapted to a changing understanding, but do not want to throw the children out with the bathwater.

Aborigines didn’t believe that sex caused pregnancy.

But if we’re talking primitive beliefs here, no primitive tribes believed in creationism.

mollwollfumble said:

Aborigines didn’t believe that sex caused pregnancy.

Ref?

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

I don’t. Things like airliners not being allowed to overfly certain salt lakes at 35,000 feet because it might upset some lake spirit is plain bullshit to me and should not be considered in planning flight paths.

Is that a thing?

Yeah. In WA it is. Certain salt lakes are off-limits for everything, boating, fishing, camping, even flying over them. For fear of disturbing evil spirits that live below the lake.

I did not know that.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

I don’t. Things like airliners not being allowed to overfly certain salt lakes at 35,000 feet because it might upset some lake spirit is plain bullshit to me and should not be considered in planning flight paths.

Is that a thing?

Yeah. In WA it is. Certain salt lakes are off-limits for everything, boating, fishing, camping, even flying over them. For fear of disturbing evil spirits that live below the lake.

https://theconversation.com/dreamings-and-place-aboriginal-monsters-and-their-meanings-25606

worth a read for a better understanding.

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Aborigines didn’t believe that sex caused pregnancy.

Ref?

Three different books. You know what a book is, don’t you?

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Aborigines didn’t believe that sex caused pregnancy.

Ref?

Three different books. You know what a book is, don’t you?

Your ill-judged interpretation of Aboriginal culture has been found in the past to be wanting because of your inability to ignore your preconceived notions. Did you choose to disregard ‘books’ that claimed the opposite?

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Aborigines didn’t believe that sex caused pregnancy.

Ref?

Three different books. You know what a book is, don’t you?

Oh, some fiction books. Which ones?

party_pants said:

transition said:

and moving on a bit, how do arrogant science-types reconcile the beliefs of ancient peoples, like indigenous Australians, I bet there’s some patronizing bullshit about that

I don’t. Things like airliners not being allowed to overfly certain salt lakes at 35,000 feet because it might upset some lake spirit is plain bullshit to me and should not be considered in planning flight paths.

chuckle

very unnatural business people flying

>You just seem to be wanting to create an argument about evolution for some reason

I guess you could say that, whether true or not or to whatever extent true, more I was having some fun with moll’s incitement perhaps (i’ll call it here, for my purposes) to territorially hunt down creationist cousins, real or imagined, or the imagined made real, and put them right, and it’s difficult for me to be swayed toward the view the theory of evolution invested with that sort of enthusiasm, projected, is neutral, and in any way good, or mostly good, or likely to do much good

if you could give it some thought, consider whether the theory of evolution, pop notions of if you will, do lend to legitimizing humans status as the dominant species on the planet, I mean that would be interesting, your view, or speculation regard that, because to my mind that’s similar to what the bible, religion and creation stories lend to

to put the idea simply, in a proposition, i’d ask why do most people watch Attenborough on TV, really?

the correct answer, the most respectable one, might be that they watch it to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, but I have a suspicion that if the internal press agent were interrogated you’d reveal it’s to affirm the status of the dominant species, being a member of the dominant species

anyway, the background to what i’m saying, or doing, involves the view that trying to convert creationists lends to siege, contributes to generating a siege response, maybe a justified siege response

that’s why I initially suggested a person could be a creationist for the purposes of relating, like I said every day I marvel at the lord’s grand work

as for wayward literal interpretations of scripture, and adopting thoughtlessly secondhand ideas and worse, ideology, well, it’s clear what I think of that in how I just used words to describe it

I say make it up, because that’s what minds do, but rethink even the basics, I mean science (critical thinking) should involve a constant rethought process really, not an unthought like evolution is right and creation stories are wrong, which happens

i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor, given I can’t know much of what happened in the past, it’s useful that way, instrumental if you will

I mean most abstraction, something humans do well, involves instrumental simplifications, in the representational field, and it seems counterproductive to incite a siege response in that territory, regard how everything came to be

So it is God who makes things work the way they do? Just wait till I catch him. I’ll release the wild boars to eat his testicles too.

roughbarked said:

…it is God who makes things work the way they do?

If he’s in charge of things on this planet, he’s not much of a manager.i doubt that he could run shit through a tin horn .

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

…it is God who makes things work the way they do?

If he’s in charge of things on this planet, he’s not much of a manager.i doubt that he could run shit through a tin horn .

or pass a cmel through the eye of a needle?

transition said:

>You just seem to be wanting to create an argument about evolution for some reason

I guess you could say that, whether true or not or to whatever extent true, more I was having some fun with moll’s incitement perhaps (i’ll call it here, for my purposes) to territorially hunt down creationist cousins, real or imagined, or the imagined made real, and put them right, and it’s difficult for me to be swayed toward the view the theory of evolution invested with that sort of enthusiasm, projected, is neutral, and in any way good, or mostly good, or likely to do much good

OK, fair enough

transition said:

if you could give it some thought, consider whether the theory of evolution, pop notions of if you will, do lend to legitimizing humans status as the dominant species on the planet, I mean that would be interesting, your view, or speculation regard that, because to my mind that’s similar to what the bible, religion and creation stories lend to

I’m not really interested in pop notions.
I think the actual theory of evolution does pretty well the exact opposite of what you state above.

transition said:

to put the idea simply, in a proposition, i’d ask why do most people watch Attenborough on TV, really?

the correct answer, the most respectable one, might be that they watch it to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, but I have a suspicion that if the internal press agent were interrogated you’d reveal it’s to affirm the status of the dominant species, being a member of the dominant species

I don’t see Dave as a promoter of pop notions, or a promoter of the dominant species concept.

transition said:

anyway, the background to what i’m saying, or doing, involves the view that trying to convert creationists lends to siege, contributes to generating a siege response, maybe a justified siege response

that’s why I initially suggested a person could be a creationist for the purposes of relating, like I said every day I marvel at the lord’s grand work

as for wayward literal interpretations of scripture, and adopting thoughtlessly secondhand ideas and worse, ideology, well, it’s clear what I think of that in how I just used words to describe it

But what moll was talking about was someone accepting the “wayward literal interpretations of scripture” as the absolute literal truth. I’m not sure that marvelling at the universe has anything to do with that.

transition said:

I say make it up, because that’s what minds do, but rethink even the basics, I mean science (critical thinking) should involve a constant rethought process really, not an unthought like evolution is right and creation stories are wrong, which happens

OK, but you can (and IMO should) do both; i.e. both rethink everything, and argue that literal acceptance of creation stories as the absolute and complete truth is wrong.

transition said:

i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor, given I can’t know much of what happened in the past, it’s useful that way, instrumental if you will

I mean most abstraction, something humans do well, involves instrumental simplifications, in the representational field, and it seems counterproductive to incite a siege response in that territory, regard how everything came to be

Each to their own.

I don’t find the God concept at all comforting, even as a metaphor.

But I can still enjoy the words of the Incredible String Band.

“Not with the lips of skin nor yet with the lips of dark snow
But let the white dove sing
Of the body of life of the lover whose love is complete
Hold hands out to greet, let not the swan be brought low

For all that is moving, is moved by her hands
She is mirrored for ever in the life of the lands
In the building of thoughts in the shifting of sands”

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>You just seem to be wanting to create an argument about evolution for some reason

I guess you could say that, whether true or not or to whatever extent true, more I was having some fun with moll’s incitement perhaps (i’ll call it here, for my purposes) to territorially hunt down creationist cousins, real or imagined, or the imagined made real, and put them right, and it’s difficult for me to be swayed toward the view the theory of evolution invested with that sort of enthusiasm, projected, is neutral, and in any way good, or mostly good, or likely to do much good

OK, fair enough

transition said:

if you could give it some thought, consider whether the theory of evolution, pop notions of if you will, do lend to legitimizing humans status as the dominant species on the planet, I mean that would be interesting, your view, or speculation regard that, because to my mind that’s similar to what the bible, religion and creation stories lend to

I’m not really interested in pop notions.
I think the actual theory of evolution does pretty well the exact opposite of what you state above.

But what moll was talking about was someone accepting the “wayward literal interpretations of scripture” as the absolute literal truth. I’m not sure that marvelling at the universe has anything to do with that.

transition said:

I say make it up, because that’s what minds do, but rethink even the basics, I mean science (critical thinking) should involve a constant rethought process really, not an unthought like evolution is right and creation stories are wrong, which happens

OK, but you can (and IMO should) do both; i.e. both rethink everything, and argue that literal acceptance of creation stories as the absolute and complete truth is wrong.

transition said:

i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor, given I can’t know much of what happened in the past, it’s useful that way, instrumental if you will

I mean most abstraction, something humans do well, involves instrumental simplifications, in the representational field, and it seems counterproductive to incite a siege response in that territory, regard how everything came to be

Each to their own.

I don’t find the God concept at all comforting, even as a metaphor.

But I can still enjoy the words of the Incredible String Band.

“Not with the lips of skin nor yet with the lips of dark snow
But let the white dove sing
Of the body of life of the lover whose love is complete
Hold hands out to greet, let not the swan be brought low

For all that is moving, is moved by her hands
She is mirrored for ever in the life of the lands
In the building of thoughts in the shifting of sands”

:)

May the longtime sun shine upon you
All love surround you
Let the pure light within you
guide your way onward.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>You just seem to be wanting to create an argument about evolution for some reason

I guess you could say that, whether true or not or to whatever extent true, more I was having some fun with moll’s incitement perhaps (i’ll call it here, for my purposes) to territorially hunt down creationist cousins, real or imagined, or the imagined made real, and put them right, and it’s difficult for me to be swayed toward the view the theory of evolution invested with that sort of enthusiasm, projected, is neutral, and in any way good, or mostly good, or likely to do much good

OK, fair enough

OK, but you can (and IMO should) do both; i.e. both rethink everything, and argue that literal acceptance of creation stories as the absolute and complete truth is wrong.

transition said:

i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor, given I can’t know much of what happened in the past, it’s useful that way, instrumental if you will

I mean most abstraction, something humans do well, involves instrumental simplifications, in the representational field, and it seems counterproductive to incite a siege response in that territory, regard how everything came to be

Each to their own.

I don’t find the God concept at all comforting, even as a metaphor.

But I can still enjoy the words of the Incredible String Band.

“Not with the lips of skin nor yet with the lips of dark snow
But let the white dove sing
Of the body of life of the lover whose love is complete
Hold hands out to greet, let not the swan be brought low

For all that is moving, is moved by her hands
She is mirrored for ever in the life of the lands
In the building of thoughts in the shifting of sands”

:)

May the longtime sun shine upon you
All love surround you
Let the pure light within you
guide your way onward.

:)

I do think the poetry of the ISB is greatly under-rated.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>You just seem to be wanting to create an argument about evolution for some reason

I guess you could say that, whether true or not or to whatever extent true, more I was having some fun with moll’s incitement perhaps (i’ll call it here, for my purposes) to territorially hunt down creationist cousins, real or imagined, or the imagined made real, and put them right, and it’s difficult for me to be swayed toward the view the theory of evolution invested with that sort of enthusiasm, projected, is neutral, and in any way good, or mostly good, or likely to do much good

OK, fair enough

OK, but you can (and IMO should) do both; i.e. both rethink everything, and argue that literal acceptance of creation stories as the absolute and complete truth is wrong.

transition said:

i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor, given I can’t know much of what happened in the past, it’s useful that way, instrumental if you will

I mean most abstraction, something humans do well, involves instrumental simplifications, in the representational field, and it seems counterproductive to incite a siege response in that territory, regard how everything came to be

Each to their own.

I don’t find the God concept at all comforting, even as a metaphor.

But I can still enjoy the words of the Incredible String Band.

“Not with the lips of skin nor yet with the lips of dark snow
But let the white dove sing
Of the body of life of the lover whose love is complete
Hold hands out to greet, let not the swan be brought low

For all that is moving, is moved by her hands
She is mirrored for ever in the life of the lands
In the building of thoughts in the shifting of sands”

:)

May the longtime sun shine upon you
All love surround you
Let the pure light within you
guide your way onward.

Why do we never get an answer
When we’re knocking at the door?

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Each to their own.

I don’t find the God concept at all comforting, even as a metaphor.

But I can still enjoy the words of the Incredible String Band.

“Not with the lips of skin nor yet with the lips of dark snow
But let the white dove sing
Of the body of life of the lover whose love is complete
Hold hands out to greet, let not the swan be brought low

For all that is moving, is moved by her hands
She is mirrored for ever in the life of the lands
In the building of thoughts in the shifting of sands”

:)

May the longtime sun shine upon you
All love surround you
Let the pure light within you
guide your way onward.

Why do we never get an answer
When we’re knocking at the door?

And when you stop and think about it
You won’t believe it’s true
That all the love you’ve been giving
Has all been meant for you

>But what moll was talking about was someone accepting the “wayward literal interpretations of scripture” as the absolute literal truth”

that’s right moll was talking about someone else, importantly, and disapproval may have been involved, evolved mechanisms of disapproval and who’s to say that can be entirely trusted

I mean there’s a personal interest in evolution, and there’s the act of trying to sway other people to see the world that way, see life that way, which are quite different things

transition said:

>But what moll was talking about was someone accepting the “wayward literal interpretations of scripture” as the absolute literal truth”

that’s right moll was talking about someone else, importantly, and disapproval may have been involved, evolved mechanisms of disapproval and who’s to say that can be entirely trusted

I mean there’s a personal interest in evolution, and there’s the act of trying to sway other people to see the world that way, see life that way, which are quite different things

This be true too.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

:)

May the longtime sun shine upon you
All love surround you
Let the pure light within you
guide your way onward.

Why do we never get an answer
When we’re knocking at the door?

And when you stop and think about it
You won’t believe it’s true
That all the love you’ve been giving
Has all been meant for you

:)

transition said:

>But what moll was talking about was someone accepting the “wayward literal interpretations of scripture” as the absolute literal truth”

that’s right moll was talking about someone else, importantly, and disapproval may have been involved, evolved mechanisms of disapproval and who’s to say that can be entirely trusted

I mean there’s a personal interest in evolution, and there’s the act of trying to sway other people to see the world that way, see life that way, which are quite different things

OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is.

Do you?

>i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor

As an artist I work with metaphors and symbols in images that express my imaginative interaction with the world. But while artists are honest that our work is a creation of our imaginations (and indeed proud of that fact), religions seek to deny the imaginary nature of their stories – true believers are expected to accept the gods and angels and miracles as objectively real, while the “infidels” – the unbelievers – are destined to Hell for their “lack of faith”. (Religious faith: “Yeah, we all know these claims are unbelievable, but let’s pretend that believing the unbelievable is somehow virtuous.”)

This is why I see religion as not just wrong, but toxic. It’s a betrayal of both the intellect and the imagination, a morbid mixture of conceit and deceit that should have no place in an optimistic future of humanity.

transition said:

i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor, given I can’t know much of what happened in the past, it’s useful that way, instrumental if you will

Don’t you go to Mass on a weekly basis?

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor, given I can’t know much of what happened in the past, it’s useful that way, instrumental if you will

Don’t you go to Mass on a weekly basis?

You’re thinking of PWM.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

i’m not religious, I do however indulge the idea of God as comforting metaphor, given I can’t know much of what happened in the past, it’s useful that way, instrumental if you will

Don’t you go to Mass on a weekly basis?

You’re thinking of PWM.

Nah I’m sure Onty has mentioned going to Mass.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Don’t you go to Mass on a weekly basis?

You’re thinking of PWM.

Nah I’m sure Onty has mentioned going to Mass.

He was speaking metaphorically.

Religious stories aren’t even that imaginative or fleshed out.
Just about any science fiction, horror or fantasy is better written and some have a much more detailed universe in which the characters exist.
I’m astonished people take it as real but don’t accept actual things based of facts and knowledge
Great claims require great proof except when it comes to religion were anything goes

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

You’re thinking of PWM.

Nah I’m sure Onty has mentioned going to Mass.

He was speaking metaphorically.

Perhaps it was mass murderer

Cymek said:

Great claims require great proof except when it comes to religion were anything goes

And you can’t point out the inconsistencies and contradictions to believers, because that’s offensive.

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Nah I’m sure Onty has mentioned going to Mass.

He was speaking metaphorically.

Perhaps it was mass murderer

Maybe it’s meant in terms similar to ‘going to fat’ or ‘going to mush’?

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Great claims require great proof except when it comes to religion were anything goes

And you can’t point out the inconsistencies and contradictions to believers, because that’s offensive.

That as well

I’m putting together a timeline of creation. So far:

It gets messy after that.

I’m hoping to extend it down to:
1955 – First labradoodle

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>But what moll was talking about was someone accepting the “wayward literal interpretations of scripture” as the absolute literal truth”

that’s right moll was talking about someone else, importantly, and disapproval may have been involved, evolved mechanisms of disapproval and who’s to say that can be entirely trusted

I mean there’s a personal interest in evolution, and there’s the act of trying to sway other people to see the world that way, see life that way, which are quite different things

OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is.

Do you?

depends, I mean does evolution theory contribute much useful to your moment to moment mental states, equilibrium mental states, related homeostasis, the fun bubbles in your head, percolating through the wetware

I wouldn’t like to make the idea or ideas related my home, core ego, take over the home in my head

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>But what moll was talking about was someone accepting the “wayward literal interpretations of scripture” as the absolute literal truth”

that’s right moll was talking about someone else, importantly, and disapproval may have been involved, evolved mechanisms of disapproval and who’s to say that can be entirely trusted

I mean there’s a personal interest in evolution, and there’s the act of trying to sway other people to see the world that way, see life that way, which are quite different things

OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is.

Do you?

depends, I mean does evolution theory contribute much useful to your moment to moment mental states, equilibrium mental states, related homeostasis, the fun bubbles in your head, percolating through the wetware

I wouldn’t like to make the idea or ideas related my home, core ego, take over the home in my head

I think it sad people had over the reigns to believe in a creator or god(s) and accept that’s it, no proof, numerous through time and location all the correct one and everyone else wrong.
Often used to discriminate and kill (to be fair that’s not exclusive)
Most likely made up to explain something that occurred, most come out a harsh environment probably to keep people in line

Cymek said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is.

Do you?

depends, I mean does evolution theory contribute much useful to your moment to moment mental states, equilibrium mental states, related homeostasis, the fun bubbles in your head, percolating through the wetware

I wouldn’t like to make the idea or ideas related my home, core ego, take over the home in my head

I think it sad people had over the reigns to believe in a creator or god(s) and accept that’s it, no proof, numerous through time and location all the correct one and everyone else wrong.
Often used to discriminate and kill (to be fair that’s not exclusive)
Most likely made up to explain something that occurred, most come out a harsh environment probably to keep people in line

Love emnates from those who give.
If once he smites you, turn thine other cheek.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>But what moll was talking about was someone accepting the “wayward literal interpretations of scripture” as the absolute literal truth”

that’s right moll was talking about someone else, importantly, and disapproval may have been involved, evolved mechanisms of disapproval and who’s to say that can be entirely trusted

I mean there’s a personal interest in evolution, and there’s the act of trying to sway other people to see the world that way, see life that way, which are quite different things

OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is.

Do you?

depends, I mean does evolution theory contribute much useful to your moment to moment mental states, equilibrium mental states, related homeostasis, the fun bubbles in your head, percolating through the wetware

I’m not sure how much it contributes to that, but certainly much more than literal biblical creationism does.

transition said:

I wouldn’t like to make the idea or ideas related my home, core ego, take over the home in my head

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

depends, I mean does evolution theory contribute much useful to your moment to moment mental states, equilibrium mental states, related homeostasis, the fun bubbles in your head, percolating through the wetware

I’m not sure how much it contributes to that, but certainly much more than literal biblical creationism does.

transition said:

I wouldn’t like to make the idea or ideas related my home, core ego, take over the home in my head

I’m quite comfortable with the whole evolutional thing. As far as it goes it clould well still fit in with some seeding done by aliens and supported by further indoctrination from a later skywalker by the name of Jesu.

It really doesn’t matter how you read this stuff. What actually matters is what you do with it.

It is thought that religion is an archaic answer to the creation and workings of natural events. In other words a desire to know and understand, but was used to gain power and influence by others. It might well be that true creationism is what people have done to an honest interest and desire to understand their surroundings.

PermeateFree said:

It is thought that religion is an archaic answer to the creation and workings of natural events. In other words a desire to know and understand, but was used to gain power and influence by others. It might well be that true creationism is what people have done to an honest interest and desire to understand their surroundings.

As I said. It is what you do with it that counts.

Here are some points to make to a creationist…

Start with family relationships. Carl Linnaeus showed how living things can be classified into species, genera, families and so on, and Darwin pointed out that this is exactly the structure we would expect from a family tree. All dogs are canines, so dogs share an ancestor with foxes; all canines are carnivora, so dogs share a more remote ancestor with bears; all carnivora are mammals, so dogs and sheep are, albeit more remotely, related, and so on.

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Observe the fossil record. Once lamentably full of gaps (Darwin was among the lamenters), it is now densely populated. A century ago, it still made sense to point to the “missing link” between humans and pre-human apes. Now we know of several different hominin species living alongside each other, and the problem becomes one of distinguishing our grandparents from our great uncles. And yes, there are missing links in the chain, but without evolution we would not have a chain at all.

And then there’s biogeography: for example, why marsupials are only found in South America and Australasia, and except for a few species that made their way across the Isthmus of Panama, are never found elsewhere.

Plus we can actually observe evolution, and study it in the field or in the lab. The emergence of pesticide resistance is evolution in action, as shown in the justly famous Harvard/Technion demonstration “evolution on a plate”. So is the delightful Russian experiment of breeding tame foxes. Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action.

And finally, and most convincingly, we must look at the way that these different lines of evidence mesh together. We can apply biogeography to the fossil record, and link it to what we know about the movements of the continents. Using the methods of molecular biology, we can identify and time the mutations that led different species to diverge from their common ancestor, and match the timing against the fossil record.

Thus the fossil record, deep anatomical resemblances, and DNA evidence agree in showing that whales, for instance, are closely related to hoofed mammals, diverging from them in the Eocene period. There are many other examples of such consistency.

Then, and only then, pause to explain how a scientific theory is an interlocking connection of ideas that explain things about the world, and that evolution is one of the most successful examples. And challenge the Mike Pences of this world to spell out exactly what they would like to see taught alongside the Theory of Evolution – and why.

https://theconversation.com/how-to-slam-dunk-creationists-when-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581

Ian said:

Here are some points to make to a creationist…

Start with family relationships. Carl Linnaeus showed how living things can be classified into species, genera, families and so on, and Darwin pointed out that this is exactly the structure we would expect from a family tree. All dogs are canines, so dogs share an ancestor with foxes; all canines are carnivora, so dogs share a more remote ancestor with bears; all carnivora are mammals, so dogs and sheep are, albeit more remotely, related, and so on.

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Observe the fossil record. Once lamentably full of gaps (Darwin was among the lamenters), it is now densely populated. A century ago, it still made sense to point to the “missing link” between humans and pre-human apes. Now we know of several different hominin species living alongside each other, and the problem becomes one of distinguishing our grandparents from our great uncles. And yes, there are missing links in the chain, but without evolution we would not have a chain at all.

And then there’s biogeography: for example, why marsupials are only found in South America and Australasia, and except for a few species that made their way across the Isthmus of Panama, are never found elsewhere.

Plus we can actually observe evolution, and study it in the field or in the lab. The emergence of pesticide resistance is evolution in action, as shown in the justly famous Harvard/Technion demonstration “evolution on a plate”. So is the delightful Russian experiment of breeding tame foxes. Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action.

And finally, and most convincingly, we must look at the way that these different lines of evidence mesh together. We can apply biogeography to the fossil record, and link it to what we know about the movements of the continents. Using the methods of molecular biology, we can identify and time the mutations that led different species to diverge from their common ancestor, and match the timing against the fossil record.

Thus the fossil record, deep anatomical resemblances, and DNA evidence agree in showing that whales, for instance, are closely related to hoofed mammals, diverging from them in the Eocene period. There are many other examples of such consistency.

Then, and only then, pause to explain how a scientific theory is an interlocking connection of ideas that explain things about the world, and that evolution is one of the most successful examples. And challenge the Mike Pences of this world to spell out exactly what they would like to see taught alongside the Theory of Evolution – and why.

https://theconversation.com/how-to-slam-dunk-creationists-when-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581

If everything was created then whomever/whatever did it wasn’t omniscient as everything living is prone to illness and disease

Cymek said:

Ian said:

Here are some points to make to a creationist…

Start with family relationships. Carl Linnaeus showed how living things can be classified into species, genera, families and so on, and Darwin pointed out that this is exactly the structure we would expect from a family tree. All dogs are canines, so dogs share an ancestor with foxes; all canines are carnivora, so dogs share a more remote ancestor with bears; all carnivora are mammals, so dogs and sheep are, albeit more remotely, related, and so on.

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Observe the fossil record. Once lamentably full of gaps (Darwin was among the lamenters), it is now densely populated. A century ago, it still made sense to point to the “missing link” between humans and pre-human apes. Now we know of several different hominin species living alongside each other, and the problem becomes one of distinguishing our grandparents from our great uncles. And yes, there are missing links in the chain, but without evolution we would not have a chain at all.

And then there’s biogeography: for example, why marsupials are only found in South America and Australasia, and except for a few species that made their way across the Isthmus of Panama, are never found elsewhere.

Plus we can actually observe evolution, and study it in the field or in the lab. The emergence of pesticide resistance is evolution in action, as shown in the justly famous Harvard/Technion demonstration “evolution on a plate”. So is the delightful Russian experiment of breeding tame foxes. Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action.

And finally, and most convincingly, we must look at the way that these different lines of evidence mesh together. We can apply biogeography to the fossil record, and link it to what we know about the movements of the continents. Using the methods of molecular biology, we can identify and time the mutations that led different species to diverge from their common ancestor, and match the timing against the fossil record.

Thus the fossil record, deep anatomical resemblances, and DNA evidence agree in showing that whales, for instance, are closely related to hoofed mammals, diverging from them in the Eocene period. There are many other examples of such consistency.

Then, and only then, pause to explain how a scientific theory is an interlocking connection of ideas that explain things about the world, and that evolution is one of the most successful examples. And challenge the Mike Pences of this world to spell out exactly what they would like to see taught alongside the Theory of Evolution – and why.

https://theconversation.com/how-to-slam-dunk-creationists-when-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581

If everything was created then whomever/whatever did it wasn’t omniscient as everything living is prone to illness and disease

Conveniently, everything was perfect until we screwed up and ate a piece of fruit…

Ian said:

Here are some points to make to a creationist…

Start with family relationships. Carl Linnaeus showed how living things can be classified into species, genera, families and so on, and Darwin pointed out that this is exactly the structure we would expect from a family tree. All dogs are canines, so dogs share an ancestor with foxes; all canines are carnivora, so dogs share a more remote ancestor with bears; all carnivora are mammals, so dogs and sheep are, albeit more remotely, related, and so on.

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Observe the fossil record. Once lamentably full of gaps (Darwin was among the lamenters), it is now densely populated. A century ago, it still made sense to point to the “missing link” between humans and pre-human apes. Now we know of several different hominin species living alongside each other, and the problem becomes one of distinguishing our grandparents from our great uncles. And yes, there are missing links in the chain, but without evolution we would not have a chain at all.

And then there’s biogeography: for example, why marsupials are only found in South America and Australasia, and except for a few species that made their way across the Isthmus of Panama, are never found elsewhere.

Plus we can actually observe evolution, and study it in the field or in the lab. The emergence of pesticide resistance is evolution in action, as shown in the justly famous Harvard/Technion demonstration “evolution on a plate”. So is the delightful Russian experiment of breeding tame foxes. Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action.

And finally, and most convincingly, we must look at the way that these different lines of evidence mesh together. We can apply biogeography to the fossil record, and link it to what we know about the movements of the continents. Using the methods of molecular biology, we can identify and time the mutations that led different species to diverge from their common ancestor, and match the timing against the fossil record.

Thus the fossil record, deep anatomical resemblances, and DNA evidence agree in showing that whales, for instance, are closely related to hoofed mammals, diverging from them in the Eocene period. There are many other examples of such consistency.

Then, and only then, pause to explain how a scientific theory is an interlocking connection of ideas that explain things about the world, and that evolution is one of the most successful examples. And challenge the Mike Pences of this world to spell out exactly what they would like to see taught alongside the Theory of Evolution – and why.

https://theconversation.com/how-to-slam-dunk-creationists-when-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581

Good stuff!

furious said:

Cymek said:

Ian said:

Here are some points to make to a creationist…

Start with family relationships. Carl Linnaeus showed how living things can be classified into species, genera, families and so on, and Darwin pointed out that this is exactly the structure we would expect from a family tree. All dogs are canines, so dogs share an ancestor with foxes; all canines are carnivora, so dogs share a more remote ancestor with bears; all carnivora are mammals, so dogs and sheep are, albeit more remotely, related, and so on.

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Observe the fossil record. Once lamentably full of gaps (Darwin was among the lamenters), it is now densely populated. A century ago, it still made sense to point to the “missing link” between humans and pre-human apes. Now we know of several different hominin species living alongside each other, and the problem becomes one of distinguishing our grandparents from our great uncles. And yes, there are missing links in the chain, but without evolution we would not have a chain at all.

And then there’s biogeography: for example, why marsupials are only found in South America and Australasia, and except for a few species that made their way across the Isthmus of Panama, are never found elsewhere.

Plus we can actually observe evolution, and study it in the field or in the lab. The emergence of pesticide resistance is evolution in action, as shown in the justly famous Harvard/Technion demonstration “evolution on a plate”. So is the delightful Russian experiment of breeding tame foxes. Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action.

And finally, and most convincingly, we must look at the way that these different lines of evidence mesh together. We can apply biogeography to the fossil record, and link it to what we know about the movements of the continents. Using the methods of molecular biology, we can identify and time the mutations that led different species to diverge from their common ancestor, and match the timing against the fossil record.

Thus the fossil record, deep anatomical resemblances, and DNA evidence agree in showing that whales, for instance, are closely related to hoofed mammals, diverging from them in the Eocene period. There are many other examples of such consistency.

Then, and only then, pause to explain how a scientific theory is an interlocking connection of ideas that explain things about the world, and that evolution is one of the most successful examples. And challenge the Mike Pences of this world to spell out exactly what they would like to see taught alongside the Theory of Evolution – and why.

https://theconversation.com/how-to-slam-dunk-creationists-when-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581

If everything was created then whomever/whatever did it wasn’t omniscient as everything living is prone to illness and disease

Conveniently, everything was perfect until we screwed up and ate a piece of fruit…

Ironically, that fruit is actually good for you.

If your interlocutors are of the belief that the world and everything in it were created over a very short time, as described in the bible, and no animals or plants have changed/evolved since then, ask them where the nylon bug came from. It’s a bacterium that eats nylon (actually by-products of nylon manufacture,) so can’t have existed before nylon, which was invented in 1935. The bug was discovered in 1975; it produces digestive enzymes that do not occur anywhere else in nature.

If they are of the belief that the creator started everything 14Gy ago and stepped back, you could point out that that’s completely consistent with evolution.

roughbarked said:

furious said:

Cymek said:

If everything was created then whomever/whatever did it wasn’t omniscient as everything living is prone to illness and disease

Conveniently, everything was perfect until we screwed up and ate a piece of fruit…

Ironically, that fruit is actually good for you.

Is it bad that we choose knowledge over blissful ignorance

btm said:

If your interlocutors are of the belief that the world and everything in it were created over a very short time, as described in the bible, and no animals or plants have changed/evolved since then, ask them where the nylon bug came from. It’s a bacterium that eats nylon (actually by-products of nylon manufacture,) so can’t have existed before nylon, which was invented in 1935. The bug was discovered in 1975; it produces digestive enzymes that do not occur anywhere else in nature.

If they are of the belief that the creator started everything 14Gy ago and stepped back, you could point out that that’s completely consistent with evolution.

Huh, TIL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

furious said:

Cymek said:

If everything was created then whomever/whatever did it wasn’t omniscient as everything living is prone to illness and disease

Conveniently, everything was perfect until we screwed up and ate a piece of fruit…

That bit never made sense to me. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge” gave the eater knowledge of good and evil, but god instructed the only two people in existence not to eat it. The people in question had no knowledge of good and evil until after they’d eaten the fruit, so they couldn’t know that eating the fruit was wrong until after they’d eaten it.

btm said:

furious said:

Cymek said:

If everything was created then whomever/whatever did it wasn’t omniscient as everything living is prone to illness and disease

Conveniently, everything was perfect until we screwed up and ate a piece of fruit…

That bit never made sense to me. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge” gave the eater knowledge of good and evil, but god instructed the only two people in existence not to eat it. The people in question had no knowledge of good and evil until after they’d eaten the fruit, so they couldn’t know that eating the fruit was wrong until after they’d eaten it.

As has been said; This bloke works in mysterious ways.

btm said:

furious said:

Cymek said:

If everything was created then whomever/whatever did it wasn’t omniscient as everything living is prone to illness and disease

Conveniently, everything was perfect until we screwed up and ate a piece of fruit…

That bit never made sense to me. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge” gave the eater knowledge of good and evil, but god instructed the only two people in existence not to eat it. The people in question had no knowledge of good and evil until after they’d eaten the fruit, so they couldn’t know that eating the fruit was wrong until after they’d eaten it.

Ignorance and lack of education is one way people are kept under thumb

Cymek said:

btm said:

furious said:

Conveniently, everything was perfect until we screwed up and ate a piece of fruit…

That bit never made sense to me. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge” gave the eater knowledge of good and evil, but god instructed the only two people in existence not to eat it. The people in question had no knowledge of good and evil until after they’d eaten the fruit, so they couldn’t know that eating the fruit was wrong until after they’d eaten it.

Ignorance and lack of education is one way people are kept under thumb

or the parable could simply be instructional as to the above. Girl Guides handbook.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

btm said:

That bit never made sense to me. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge” gave the eater knowledge of good and evil, but god instructed the only two people in existence not to eat it. The people in question had no knowledge of good and evil until after they’d eaten the fruit, so they couldn’t know that eating the fruit was wrong until after they’d eaten it.

Ignorance and lack of education is one way people are kept under thumb

or the parable could simply be instructional as to the above. Girl Guides handbook.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-28/girl-scouts-rebuke-boy-scouts-in-escalating-recruitment-war/13017010

btm said:

furious said:

Cymek said:

If everything was created then whomever/whatever did it wasn’t omniscient as everything living is prone to illness and disease

Conveniently, everything was perfect until we screwed up and ate a piece of fruit…

That bit never made sense to me. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge” gave the eater knowledge of good and evil, but god instructed the only two people in existence not to eat it. The people in question had no knowledge of good and evil until after they’d eaten the fruit, so they couldn’t know that eating the fruit was wrong until after they’d eaten it.

Adam and Eve

>If they are of the belief that the creator started everything 14Gy ago and stepped back, you could point out that that’s completely consistent with evolution.

Well not really, because a creator starting everything is magic, whereas the theory of evolution is science. One is fantasy, the other is a description of what we observe.

>OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is

you can tell yourself that, and I wouldn’t disagree

how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely), held it persistently in your imagination, ‘reality’ would make you sick, and I won’t bother with all the suffering of the past, frankly if you’re advocating minds are reality maximizers you’re kidding yourself, it’s a delusion you’d like others to internalize the seeds of, probably not one you’d inflict on yourself, though your internal press agent is busy as if

transition said:

>OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is

you can tell yourself that, and I wouldn’t disagree

how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely), held it persistently in your imagination, ‘reality’ would make you sick, and I won’t bother with all the suffering of the past, frankly if you’re advocating minds are reality maximizers you’re kidding yourself, it’s a delusion you’d like others to internalize the seeds of, probably not one you’d inflict on yourself, though your internal press agent is busy as if

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely),

How so with the above, god doesn’t slap down people misusing religion to murder and kill, its allows disease and illness as well

Cymek said:

transition said:

>OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is

you can tell yourself that, and I wouldn’t disagree

how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely), held it persistently in your imagination, ‘reality’ would make you sick, and I won’t bother with all the suffering of the past, frankly if you’re advocating minds are reality maximizers you’re kidding yourself, it’s a delusion you’d like others to internalize the seeds of, probably not one you’d inflict on yourself, though your internal press agent is busy as if

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely),

How so with the above, god doesn’t slap down people misusing religion to murder and kill, its allows disease and illness as well

the point is to stay functional and healthy a mind needs optimize reality, not maximize it

transition said:

>OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is

you can tell yourself that, and I wouldn’t disagree

how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely), held it persistently in your imagination, ‘reality’ would make you sick, and I won’t bother with all the suffering of the past, frankly if you’re advocating minds are reality maximizers you’re kidding yourself, it’s a delusion you’d like others to internalize the seeds of, probably not one you’d inflict on yourself, though your internal press agent is busy as if

Evolution does not care one iota, it is just that an organism must adapt to a new or changing environment or it dies. That is a simple law of nature.

transition said:

>OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is

you can tell yourself that, and I wouldn’t disagree

how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely), held it persistently in your imagination, ‘reality’ would make you sick, and I won’t bother with all the suffering of the past, frankly if you’re advocating minds are reality maximizers you’re kidding yourself, it’s a delusion you’d like others to internalize the seeds of, probably not one you’d inflict on yourself, though your internal press agent is busy as if

Yes there is much suffering in the world, but the kind of deluded escapism offered by religion doesn’t really help. In many cases it adds to the anguish because there’s probably always some part of the “believer” that realises it’s all bullshit, creating a constant neurotic internal struggle that detracts rather than adds to quality of life.

Is It More Important To Be Happy Than To Be Correct

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is

you can tell yourself that, and I wouldn’t disagree

how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely), held it persistently in your imagination, ‘reality’ would make you sick, and I won’t bother with all the suffering of the past, frankly if you’re advocating minds are reality maximizers you’re kidding yourself, it’s a delusion you’d like others to internalize the seeds of, probably not one you’d inflict on yourself, though your internal press agent is busy as if

Evolution does not care one iota, it is just that an organism must adapt to a new or changing environment or it dies. That is a simple law of nature.

that’s probably nonsense, it’s not evident amongst or of humans, civilized ways, as a general truth

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

>OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is

you can tell yourself that, and I wouldn’t disagree

how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely), held it persistently in your imagination, ‘reality’ would make you sick, and I won’t bother with all the suffering of the past, frankly if you’re advocating minds are reality maximizers you’re kidding yourself, it’s a delusion you’d like others to internalize the seeds of, probably not one you’d inflict on yourself, though your internal press agent is busy as if

Yes there is much suffering in the world, but the kind of deluded escapism offered by religion doesn’t really help. In many cases it adds to the anguish because there’s probably always some part of the “believer” that realises it’s all bullshit, creating a constant neurotic internal struggle that detracts rather than adds to quality of life.

you have your own escapism, to stay healthy, as do I, part of broader homeostasis is to make a comfortable external environment, to maintain the internal environment

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>OK, but I don’t have a problem with people trying to convince other people that evolution theory is almost certainly a much closer representation of reality than literal biblical creationism is

you can tell yourself that, and I wouldn’t disagree

how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

seriously, if you imagined just a small part of all the suffering going on right at this moment (courtesy evolution largely), held it persistently in your imagination, ‘reality’ would make you sick, and I won’t bother with all the suffering of the past, frankly if you’re advocating minds are reality maximizers you’re kidding yourself, it’s a delusion you’d like others to internalize the seeds of, probably not one you’d inflict on yourself, though your internal press agent is busy as if

Evolution does not care one iota, it is just that an organism must adapt to a new or changing environment or it dies. That is a simple law of nature.

that’s probably nonsense, it’s not evident amongst or of humans, civilized ways, as a general truth

Humans are just another animal that must adapt to its environment or die. Just because we can change our environment means absolutely nothing, it is purely if we can survive in it. Unfortunately most other animals cannot survive in the environments we create, which may well extend to us too (global warming, etc).

>how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

My experience of the world around me is constantly filtered through my imagination and through my many subjective concerns, transforming it into a much more humanly meaningful engagement than it otherwise would be.

But I realise that this is all my personal cognitive experience. I very much value the imagination but don’t confuse it with the world I’m interacting with.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Evolution does not care one iota, it is just that an organism must adapt to a new or changing environment or it dies. That is a simple law of nature.

that’s probably nonsense, it’s not evident amongst or of humans, civilized ways, as a general truth

Humans are just another animal that must adapt to its environment or die. Just because we can change our environment means absolutely nothing, it is purely if we can survive in it. Unfortunately most other animals cannot survive in the environments we create, which may well extend to us too (global warming, etc).

some sort of reduction happening there, you sound like a Social Darwinist, an apprentice Social Darwinist

Bubblecar said:

>how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

My experience of the world around me is constantly filtered through my imagination and through my many subjective concerns, transforming it into a much more humanly meaningful engagement than it otherwise would be.

But I realise that this is all my personal cognitive experience. I very much value the imagination but don’t confuse it with the world I’m interacting with.

i’d bet that on your most lucid occasions you’re only seeing the tiniest part of nature, and what you want to see, that serves your purposes in some way

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

that’s probably nonsense, it’s not evident amongst or of humans, civilized ways, as a general truth

Humans are just another animal that must adapt to its environment or die. Just because we can change our environment means absolutely nothing, it is purely if we can survive in it. Unfortunately most other animals cannot survive in the environments we create, which may well extend to us too (global warming, etc).

some sort of reduction happening there, you sound like a Social Darwinist, an apprentice Social Darwinist

No, that is the basis of evolution. Look it up!

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

My experience of the world around me is constantly filtered through my imagination and through my many subjective concerns, transforming it into a much more humanly meaningful engagement than it otherwise would be.

But I realise that this is all my personal cognitive experience. I very much value the imagination but don’t confuse it with the world I’m interacting with.

i’d bet that on your most lucid occasions you’re only seeing the tiniest part of nature, and what you want to see, that serves your purposes in some way

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Humans are just another animal that must adapt to its environment or die. Just because we can change our environment means absolutely nothing, it is purely if we can survive in it. Unfortunately most other animals cannot survive in the environments we create, which may well extend to us too (global warming, etc).

some sort of reduction happening there, you sound like a Social Darwinist, an apprentice Social Darwinist

No, that is the basis of evolution. Look it up!

Only those who live can pass on their genes to future generations and with natural selection the features that permit life will be favoured, improved and carried on. If they cannot do this they simply die out. There are no mystical or religious considerations despite humans hoping that they do.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

My experience of the world around me is constantly filtered through my imagination and through my many subjective concerns, transforming it into a much more humanly meaningful engagement than it otherwise would be.

But I realise that this is all my personal cognitive experience. I very much value the imagination but don’t confuse it with the world I’m interacting with.

i’d bet that on your most lucid occasions you’re only seeing the tiniest part of nature, and what you want to see, that serves your purposes in some way

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

The ritual tries to give it some legitimacy
I personally don’t understand how everyone doesn’t find science fascinating and worth learning something new everyday

Cymek said:

I personally don’t understand how everyone doesn’t find science fascinating and worth learning something new everyday

well we are

but

don’t worry there’ll come a time when you prefer the comfortable familiarity of closure

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>how much reality does a person want in a day, really?

My experience of the world around me is constantly filtered through my imagination and through my many subjective concerns, transforming it into a much more humanly meaningful engagement than it otherwise would be.

But I realise that this is all my personal cognitive experience. I very much value the imagination but don’t confuse it with the world I’m interacting with.

i’d bet that on your most lucid occasions you’re only seeing the tiniest part of nature, and what you want to see, that serves your purposes in some way

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

you don’t, from what I see, torture your mind as if it were (meant to be, and is) a reality maximizer, master car, your own internal world has its fantasies, i’m sure. I bet it has repetitive aspects also, and rituals

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

i’d bet that on your most lucid occasions you’re only seeing the tiniest part of nature, and what you want to see, that serves your purposes in some way

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

you don’t, from what I see, torture your mind as if it were (meant to be, and is) a reality maximizer, master car, your own internal world has its fantasies, i’m sure. I bet it has repetitive aspects also, and rituals

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

You’re not reading my posts very sympathetically :)

I’ve told you I have a rich imaginative life and very much value it. But I’ve also pointed out the simple difference between proudly owning one’s imaginings as imaginings, and insisting (as religion does) that an obviously fictional world is the real, objective world. You don’t seem willing to admit that religion is full of that kind of deceptive bullshit.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

you don’t, from what I see, torture your mind as if it were (meant to be, and is) a reality maximizer, master car, your own internal world has its fantasies, i’m sure. I bet it has repetitive aspects also, and rituals

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

You’re not reading my posts very sympathetically :)

I’ve told you I have a rich imaginative life and very much value it. But I’ve also pointed out the simple difference between proudly owning one’s imaginings as imaginings, and insisting (as religion does) that an obviously fictional world is the real, objective world. You don’t seem willing to admit that religion is full of that kind of deceptive bullshit.

Trans does not seem to have a clear understanding of evolution and of its importance. Evolution happens, it is not created in anyone’s mind.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

you don’t, from what I see, torture your mind as if it were (meant to be, and is) a reality maximizer, master car, your own internal world has its fantasies, i’m sure. I bet it has repetitive aspects also, and rituals

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

You’re not reading my posts very sympathetically :)

I’ve told you I have a rich imaginative life and very much value it. But I’ve also pointed out the simple difference between proudly owning one’s imaginings as imaginings, and insisting (as religion does) that an obviously fictional world is the real, objective world. You don’t seem willing to admit that religion is full of that kind of deceptive bullshit.

Considering humans are extremely imaginative isn’t it far more likely religion in all forms is that same imagination and was never meant to be thought of as the truth

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

you don’t, from what I see, torture your mind as if it were (meant to be, and is) a reality maximizer, master car, your own internal world has its fantasies, i’m sure. I bet it has repetitive aspects also, and rituals

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

You’re not reading my posts very sympathetically :)

I’ve told you I have a rich imaginative life and very much value it. But I’ve also pointed out the simple difference between proudly owning one’s imaginings as imaginings, and insisting (as religion does) that an obviously fictional world is the real, objective world. You don’t seem willing to admit that religion is full of that kind of deceptive bullshit.

i’d guess most (or much of) religion in modern times is soft religion, probably has some substantive metaphysical aspects or dimension, so maybe don’t generalize regard, hostile generalization

and this is my point really, if I has a single important point, that I think important, a caution, is that religion can’t be blamed for metaphysical impoverishment really, I mean it doesn’t seem to be that, not that I see, other influences of culture probably do more toward metaphysical impoverishment

transition said:

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

For someone who claims not to be religious you certainly seem to be taking some offence at Car’s gentle reasoning.

SCIENCE said:

Is It More Important To Be Happy Than To Be Correct

False dichotomy.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

i’d bet that on your most lucid occasions you’re only seeing the tiniest part of nature, and what you want to see, that serves your purposes in some way

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

you don’t, from what I see, torture your mind as if it were (meant to be, and is) a reality maximizer, master car, your own internal world has its fantasies, i’m sure. I bet it has repetitive aspects also, and rituals

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

WTF do you want to do that?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

you don’t, from what I see, torture your mind as if it were (meant to be, and is) a reality maximizer, master car, your own internal world has its fantasies, i’m sure. I bet it has repetitive aspects also, and rituals

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

WTF do you want to do that?

No more chocolate or presents

Whisper to me Gordon Pasha, is there a difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGRQLQqqoZ8

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Is It More Important To Be Happy Than To Be Correct

False dichotomy.

False claim.

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

For someone who claims not to be religious you certainly seem to be taking some offence at Car’s gentle reasoning.

nah i’m having a chuckle, some fun

Hey, look at this.
Proof that humans were around at the same time as the dinosaurs. Look down the list at right until you see “humans” and then follow the line left to 78 million years ago.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/100/3/1056.full.pdf

Just joking – primates were around at the same time as the dinosaurs.

mollwollfumble said:

Hey, look at this.

Proof that humans were around at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Well, i knew that when i was three.

I mean, 1960? The Flintstones?

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

Hey, look at this.

Proof that humans were around at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Well, i knew that when i was three.

I mean, 1960? The Flintstones?

Flintsones is set in a post apocalyptic future…

furious said:

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

Hey, look at this.

Proof that humans were around at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Well, i knew that when i was three.

I mean, 1960? The Flintstones?

With dinosaurs?

Flintsones is set in a post apocalyptic future…

captain_spalding said:

furious said:

captain_spalding said:

Well, i knew that when i was three.

I mean, 1960? The Flintstones?

With dinosaurs?

Flintsones is set in a post apocalyptic future…

Things “like” dinosaurs re evolved. Possibly due to fallout…

furious said:

captain_spalding said:

furious said:

Flintsones is set in a post apocalyptic future…

Things “like” dinosaurs re evolved. Possibly due to fallout…

This explains why the Flintstones and the Rubbles celebrate Xmas.

Although it suggests that they are Christians.

ambivalence prevails….

ABC News:

‘Melbourne driver allegedly pinned officer to wall with car before hour-long chase

A woman is arrested in Seaford in Melbourne’s south after she allegedly hit two police officers with her car and then led police on an hour-long chase, reaching speeds of up to 170kph.’

It’s Melbourne.

It’s the deadest time of the ‘silly season’, in the capital city second-most-likely (after Adelaide) to take ‘dead’ and ‘silly’ literally.

There’s not even the AFL religion for distraction.

Might as well go out and do something stupid with the cops.

Wrong thread.

Again.

Did i mention that i’m pissed?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

We all get only a brief glimpse of our own little corner of the universe.

Religious believers don’t even want to see that. They’ve replaced it with a cartoonish fantasy which they maintain through repetitive rituals.

you don’t, from what I see, torture your mind as if it were (meant to be, and is) a reality maximizer, master car, your own internal world has its fantasies, i’m sure. I bet it has repetitive aspects also, and rituals

but go ahead, abolish easter and christmas, make up a new calendar even, I don’t mind. The kids can celebrate evolution day, or whatever

WTF do you want to do that?

chuckle

I was thinking it might dampen the spirit of evolutionists, corrupt the what otherwise might have been evolved minds of offspring, you know the idea of jesus is lurking in the background of all that commercialization, consumerism

Ogmog said:

when a Bible thumper inquired of me;
“What are the odds of minerals & chemicals spontaneously combining to form Life?”
to which I replied;
“I should think a hellova lot better than some All-Seeing/All-Knowing/All-Powerful Being
spontaneously p0pping into BEING one morning, wouldn’t you agree?”

hee hee he never darkened my front porch again. “gee, was it sumpthin’ I sed?” /-8mollwollfumble said:

I have found this cartoon on evolution that I downloaded (from xkcd?) some years ago.

I could turn it into a poster.

If you enlarge it enough to be read I want a copy.
I’m currently ensconced in a veritable nest of “True Believers”

GOD HELP ME!

Thanks Ogmog.
A high res copy is on deviantart.

https://www.deviantart.com/albertonykus/art/The-Cartoon-Guide-to-Vertebrate-Evolution-551603446

My timeline of creation, the ending.

And yes, the first true ducks did appear before the first T. rex.

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

Hey, look at this.

Proof that humans were around at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Well, i knew that when i was three.

I mean, 1960? The Flintstones?

Are you that young?

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

Hey, look at this.

Proof that humans were around at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Well, i knew that when i was three.

I mean, 1960? The Flintstones?

Mentally, i’m still only 11. Just ask my wife.

Are you that young?

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Well, i knew that when i was three.

I mean, 1960? The Flintstones?

Mentally, i’m still only 11. Just ask my wife.

Are you that young?

:) Yes, my wife has me younger than 11.

ah, a procreationist

Smoked salmon and assorted cheeses for lunch with a cuppa.
Dessert is a sweet Kensington Pride mango,

Peak Warming Man said:

Smoked salmon and assorted cheeses for lunch with a cuppa.
Dessert is a sweet Kensington Pride mango,

Sounds like an exasperated oath.

Sweet Kensington Pride mango, whatever next??

Bubblecar said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Smoked salmon and assorted cheeses for lunch with a cuppa.
Dessert is a sweet Kensington Pride mango,

Sounds like an exasperated oath.

Sweet Kensington Pride mango, whatever next??

Who’s Mango?

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Smoked salmon and assorted cheeses for lunch with a cuppa.
Dessert is a sweet Kensington Pride mango,

Sounds like an exasperated oath.

Sweet Kensington Pride mango, whatever next??

Who’s Mango?

PWM’s incompetent batman.

Bubblecar said:

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

Sounds like an exasperated oath.

Sweet Kensington Pride mango, whatever next??

Who’s Mango?

PWM’s incompetent batman.

I see a new Marvel franchise…

Peak Warming Man said:

Smoked salmon and assorted cheeses for lunch with a cuppa.
Dessert is a sweet Kensington Pride mango,

Did you make it yourself?

Bubblecar said:

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

Sounds like an exasperated oath.

Sweet Kensington Pride mango, whatever next??

Who’s Mango?

PWM’s incompetent batman.

Just off the top of my head without looking anything up if I recall correctly the original tree emerged in Bowen, Queensland in the late 1880s (although the fruit was not formally described until the 1960s), where it was given the name “Pride of Bowen” and “Bowen Special”. It was possibly brought to Bowen from India between 1885–1889 by traders who were shipping horses for military use in India. The polyembryonic nature of the fruit suggests a south east Asian origin, although the shape and colour are very similar to Indian cultivars suggesting a possible hybrid.
That’s all I know.

furious said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Smoked salmon and assorted cheeses for lunch with a cuppa.
Dessert is a sweet Kensington Pride mango,

Did you make it yourself?

Yes, mam.

Peak Warming Man said:

furious said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Smoked salmon and assorted cheeses for lunch with a cuppa.
Dessert is a sweet Kensington Pride mango,

Did you make it yourself?

Yes, mam.

I haven’t been following this thread but it seems it has strayed from its original brief.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

furious said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Smoked salmon and assorted cheeses for lunch with a cuppa.
Dessert is a sweet Kensington Pride mango,

Did you make it yourself?

Yes, mam.

I haven’t been following this thread but it seems it has strayed from its original brief.

these loaves and fishes seem well within scope to us

Watching a re-run of “Young Sheldon”
the episode in which Sheldon and his mom are questioning each other’s sanity;

Mrs Cooper: “ Well, you’re drawing pictures in the air of invisible neutrinos!”

Sheldon; “Neutrinos are real! You talk to an invisible Man in the sky who grants wishes…
…and you’re questioning MY Sanity??”

There are so many ways to view the argument;
There’s an old saying, “There are no atheists in foxholes.”
and they’re right, who would question someone seeking comfort
when the chips are down and you’re seeking a Father Figure to cling to.

What I object to is the use of religion being used as a control mechanism to
convince people to slave for nothing in this life to get some Pie-In-the Sky in some
fantastical Great Beyond… and the threat of roasting on a spit for eternity if you don’t.

AFAIC, it’s a collaboration between church and state to control behavior in an
unenforceable situation: If the Sheriff don’t see ya’ an All-Seeing GOD is Always Watching!

…and for keeping The Faithful in line
the Crown don’t even have to pay for the service,
The Church gets to live in Palaces & wave a magic wand
and keep the un-taxed passing-the-plate-fee, forever & ever.. Amen.

Nice Work (if ya’ can get it!) /-:<

>AFAIC, it’s a collaboration between church and state to control behavior in an
unenforceable situation:…/cut/..

certainly once was part of the ideological state apparatus, if want call it that, and how intelligent do I sound when I say that, the socialists must have hijacked my mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_and_Ideological_State_Apparatuses
there ya go, take a panadol before venturing in maybe

I ended up sending my creationist sister this, in a $20 frame.

I pray that she will still talk to me afterwards.

walk it back to the source.
In the Beginning: Once Upon A Time
(Military Version: “No Shit… there I was…”)

Moses, a Jew raised and educated as an Egyptian Prince.
One of Pharaoh’s Master Builder/Stone Cutters well versed in
controlling the rabble by convincing them of Pharaoh’s Divinity
and a slave population by intimidation and threats of punishment

Upon learning that he’s actually one of the Jews held in bondage,
he decides to walk off with Pharaoh’s unwieldy/unruly work force
that he quickly discovers how self-willed & ungovernable they are,
so he retires alone to a granite out-crop with his trusty chisel…
…and the rest, as they say, is History.

At first a list of holy do’s & don’t, then an extensive conglomeration
of borrowed age-old spook stories & fairy tales, + a made up divine
history justifying ownership (theft & slaughter of original inhabitants)

But seriously, if you strip away the BS and read the bible as just
another book, it’s a Survival Manuel that’s survived to this day;

10 Basic Do’s & Don’t to live together peacefully:
Tho Shalt Not Covet Your Neighbour’s Wife’s Ass etc.
Dietary Laws: Don’t Eat Pork because it’s rife with parasites
History/Genealogy: from Noah (Gilgamesh) on,
leaning heavily on a spooky father figure who rewards/punishes
on a whim unless you bribe a priest to intervene on your behalf.
And a Book of Law: there’s even lists of prescribed judgements;
ever wondered about the actual meaning behind Eye for an eye ?
Exodus 21:24

…so although it has to be taken with a grain of salt, dismissing
it entirely is pretty much tossing out the baby with the bathwater.