"The Church that He started, quite obviously: The Catholic Church."
Well, historical accounts seem to disagree whether the "Catholic Church" proper was started directly by Christ, or if it was started as many as 400-500 years after his death.
I'm not doubting that Catholics devoutly and feverently believe that their version is the literal truth, but I'm afraid in a dispute between a group of people who have no evidence but have a vested interest in claiming a direct conenction to the messiah, and another group of disinterested people who do have evidence and are pointing out many problems with that claim, my money would be on the disinterested party with documentary evidence as being more correct...
"It is the original Bible texts which are flawless, and possibly the Vulgate. The Vulgate was translated in the 5th century by St. Jerome. Not only did he have all the original texts available, but he was very fluent in the languages involved. I haven't done the research to back this statement, but perhaps the translation was also protected from err."
It's also interesting that the Gallicana Vulgate, the second version, became the standard text of the Roman Catholic church. If it was the original version you could make a case that the later versions were mistaken distortions/revisions of an original perfect translation. If it was the third version (the most faithful translation from the Hebrew) you could make the case that it was a progressive improvement ending with a perfect translation. The fact it's the middle one of a series of differing versions leaves no such conclusion, apart from that it was an arbitrary historical accident as to which was taken as your "perfect" translation.
Also interesting is the passage in the Wikipedia article (yeah, usual Wikipedia caveats) that states: "In the other Vulgates [Romana and Gallicana] the Psalms were mostly translated from Greek, but were checked against Hebrew and Aramaic sources; this was done since they were already very familiar to the worshippers in this form and a completely new translation of the Psalms was felt to be too radical a change".
This suggests that with the previous two versions St Jerome was already editing or self-censoring his translations (to some extent) to conform more closely to the preconceptions of his audience. I'm not suggesting that he deliberately produced wildly inaccurate translations, but it graphically demonstrates that "perfectly accurate translation" wasn't his sole aim - he was also well aware of the effect any differences would have on his audience, and was seeking to minimise them.
"Huh? How could Genesis be *complete*? I'm sure you can easily demonstrate missing info-- possibly something so obvious as the kind of fruit on the tree of knowledge (assuming it was fruit)."
I have absolutely no idea. But many Christian Fundamentalists I've spoken to hold that Genesis is the whole, complete and unedited story of humanity's creation.
Otherwise, it would be possible that (say) God created Adam and Eve as the first "modern" humans (homo sapiens), and that Cain and Seth took homoerectus or Neanderthal wives (depending on when you envision Genesis taking place against the background of "human" evolution).
This would allow for a fairly neat squaring of Genesis with the established scientific consensus, and moreover one where it
I was trying (in a hurry, and exceptionally poorly, admittedly) to suggest that merely because someone (or, in this case, a country) invents a technology, that doesn't automatically mean they have the right to control it indefinitely, especially if it subsequently becomes an important part of the technological progress of the entire world. Even patents expire eventually, and having any kind of monopoly on an advancement to the whole human race is never a good thing, although (no judgement) I know this meme isn't exactly popular in the mainstream/commercial US.
The mention of TB-L and the web was intended to show that if this was considered acceptable, the UK (or Europe) could make a case for being able to dictate to the US elements of the web and HTTP management, and I think that's clearly ludicrous. It's certainly violently offensive to the american mindset, whether or not "we" invented it...
And one could make the argument that the explosive adoption of the internet was driven by the web - it's widely recognised that HTTP and the web were the "killer app" that drew people in. How long had e-mail and Usenet been around before the web? Why else did the commercial and social rise of the internet synchronise so well with the advent of the world wide web?
Had the web not come along "the internet" would have consisted of usenet, e-mail gateways and similarly less sexy/more "niche" services. It would have grown slowly and organically, and while dispute over its governance would have been a lot longer coming, the stakes would also have been lower.
FWIW I'm pretty agnostic on the ICANN/UN conflict. I can see good arguments for keeping it with ICANN (although I do seem to remember the majority of US Slashdotters bitching incessantly about them before this all flared up), but I can also see good reasons for removing the US government's potential authority over the net, and giving it to an independant international UN body (which is not the same as "giving China and Iran the casting vote", despite the US government's incessant FUD campaign on the issue).
Ultimately, this whole issue represents nothing but a lack of trust in the US by the entirety of the rest of the world. It's not really about root servers or DNS, but about the rest of the world simply no longer trusting the US to have such a hold over them.
It's admirable that the US is citing free speech concerns as reasons for not handing over control, but it's proven that (in recent history) it's not overly concerned with freedom or trustworthyness either.
I think the main problem is that other countries no longer trust the US not to potentially go on another cock-waving rampage and annex the whole internet, just like Afghanistan and Iraq. This isn't entirely logical, but when the big brother you always relied on turns into a lying, cheating bully, it's understandable that you'd get nervous about any tactical hold he still has over you.
"The Bible is the Word of God organized by His one, true Church protected from err."
Which church? The Protestant church? The Catholic church? How about the Church of England? The Methodists? Evangelicals?
And which Bible? The C of E bible? The Catholic bible? The Good News bible? The Gideon bible?
They're all different, even if by small amounts. However, you can't claim it's "protected from err[ors]" if it changes at all, since any change can introduce errors. Unless you're positing some kind of spooky, mystical holy protection that means only unimportant changes happen to it that don't change its meaning. But frankly if that's the case, you're clearly way beyond logic already.
"While there *may* be problems with English translations, the Latin Vulgate is known to be nearly (if not completely) flawless."
Beep, wrong. You can never have a flawless translation between two languages, since they don't even have semantic maps that match up one-to-one - connotations, "strengths" of phrases, puns, alternative readings... all are lost during translation, since to translate each piece of text the translator firts has to decide on a meaning, then render this meaning in another language.
At best you'll get an inherently-flawed version of what the translator thinks the text is saying, often with a missing (or corrupted) context. Normally this isn't important, but when you're talking about translating into and out of multiple languages, and a text that millions of people base their lives around, calling it a flawless representation of the original text(s), when they were generated two thousand years ago, in a different language, different culture and different context is either mistaken or disingenuous.
"For those of us who can only read English, the Douay-Rhimes translation is the most accurate followed by the King James Version (which is partially based on DRV and missing 7 books in its modern form)."
You'll have no argument here that various versions are more or less accurate, merely that none are flawless, and so none have the right to claim they're "the literal word of God".
For example, translate "I am gay" into French.
Now, did you get
1) "Je suis gai" (I am merry), or 2) "Je suis homosexuel" (I am homosexual)?
Ask this question today, of a native english-speaker, and you'll probably get (2). Ask it of a non-english-speaker and you could get (1) or (2), depending on how good their colloquial English is. Ask it of anyone seventy years ago and you'll definitely get (1).
That's only dealing with language drift this century, and between two comparatively closely related languages. Now extend that time-span to two thousand years, and try doing it between languages that don't even share and alphabet. Oh, and don't forget that in Hebrew vowels are implied (not explicitely stated), leaving further opening for misreading and misinterpretation, even within the same language.
"Oh, and note that while it says how Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were created, it does *not* say "nothing else happened during this time" or "nobody else was born or created". You might also note that a large portion of the Bible (in particular, descendant lists) don't mention the women involved."
Right. Exactly. Except many fundamentalists insist that Genesis is the literal and complete word of God.
"FYI- God did not take them to the Garden of Eden, they were alreaedy there."
But if they had evolved naturally, they would have to have been brought into the garden. They can only be created there if God creates them, and I was providing alternative, non-evolution-contradicting versions. Read the post you're replying to.
"Interesting that folks are accepting of a 400 yer old Noah, but not that when god told the authors of the bible he created heaven and earth in a day, he meant a modern 24 hours."
Firstly, a genetic freak that survives for four times the normal lifespan of an organism, while unlikely for high-order creatures, is theoretically possible given what we know. The life-extension work done on Nematode worms, for example, has achieved extensions comparable to this.
Secondly, nope - most folks just ignore a 400 year old Noah, not accept it. We'd be happy to ignore Genesis, too, if fuckwit fundamentalists didn't keep trying to ram it down our throats. On the day a broad-based coalition of religious zealots stands up, opposes clocks and propounds a theory of Intelligent Lifespan-Extension to explain Noah's survival, then yes, we'll all point out how completely unlikely and lacking in evidence that was, too.
The UK (Tim Berners-Lee) and Europe (CERN) invented the thing. The US wouldn't even have "an internet" if if had been patented, or if the IP hadn't been made freely available and licence-unencumbered...
And if there's one thing the US is world-famous for in modern times, it's wading into other people's countries, snaffling everything it wants and telling them what to do.
Before getting on your high horse I'd first check it's not a shetland pony.
No, gravitons are gravitons. Invisible yellow pixies are invisible yellow pixies.
But the great thing about Occam's Razor is that if you take the "Invisible Yellow Pixies" theory and apply Occam's Razor to it, once you've bent it to match the evidence and stripped away all the other extraneous bits, then "Invisible Yellow Pixies" do tend towards resembling "gravitons".
We don't know if gravitons even have a real existence (they're merely implied by quantum mechanics), but if quantum mechanics is correct on this (eg, we prove spacetime curvature is quantized), gravitons are then the "simplest" explanation that explains the observed evidence.
At the moment spacetime appears to be continuous, so we use Relativity. If/when a quantum theory of gravity is proposed, and explains evidence Relativity can't, Quantum Gravity becomes the explanation that Occam's Razor would lead us to.
My apologies - it didn't look at all like that was what you meant.
All the talk about "Forget[ting] about "scientists" studying him", "signing up with some pharmaceutical company", "reap[ing] some MAJOR benefits" and "requiring some VERY high payment" kind of overshadowed the (implied) bit at the bottom about "THEN to own the patent on whatever drugs they come up with"...;-)
Deary, deary me. Occam's Razor says "don't multiply entities needlessly". Emphasis on the needlessly.
Increasing complication of scientific theories doesn't negate Occam's Razor, since the entities aren't multiplied needlessly.
However, asserting that (for example) gravity isn't caused by curvature of space through the forth dimension, but is in fact conjured into existence by invisible yellow pixies is against Occam's Razor, since the curvature of space is the simpler explanation, explains the observations, is supported by more evidence and requires the fewest "new" elements to be added.
Congratulations on being an amoral capitalist scumbag.
Personally I'd only co-operate if I was given a cast-iron guarantee that any patents arising from it were donated free of charge to the WHO (or similar), and made available for free licencing to anyone who wanted to manufacture the drug.
It's about curing an incurable plague and helping save millions of lives a year, not about getting rich.
Indeed. If you get rid of the literal interpretation of Genesis.
If you insist on sticking to it (God made Adam & Eve, and they had Cain, Abel, and Seth and that's it), you're stuffed, because God doesn't spend a while lot of time talking about neanderthals or homoerectus in Genesis, so Creationists tend to ignore or deny them.
So it's not "easy" for Creationists, but rather incontrovertibly proves their literal interpretation is internally inconsistent... ie, just wrong.
Indeed, but you're falling perilously close to the "judgement is evil, and all points of view are equally good" meme that's so prevalent in our western culture (especially the USa) today.
It's also important to re-iterate (again) that science doesn't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever claim to be Right. Its strongest claim is that it provides the best answer so far.
And yes, there are different models, but that doesn't mean they're all worth the same, or that any given one is worth anything. Another "model" would be that the world (complete with us and our memories) was created 2.5 seconds ago by 37 invisible yellow pixies. This is indeed another model, but does it deserve serious consideration? How about teaching in high-school science classes?
Clearly not, because it's baseless speculation, not falsifiable and doesn't have a shred of evidence in favour of it.
Replace ID with the Invisible Yellow Pixies above, and the situation's the same.
"It depends on what you mean by evolution. ID is incompatible with Darwinism as a primary causitive factor, but not other forms of evolution."
I was talking about evolution as it's understood by the majority of scientists and educated people in the world - Darwinian evolution. I'm well aware Creationists/IDers support microevolution (since even they can't deny that). However, could you possibly point to the exact point that separates microevolution from macroevolution?
If microevolution can give rise to small changes, and lots of small changes over a long period of time can give rise to larger and larger changes, and macroevolution is the rise of large changes, why is microevolution possible buy macroevolution not, again?
Please precisely define where the separation between micro- and macroevolution is. Bear in mind it's not even "speciation", since scientists have found pretty much incontrovertible snapshots of it happening in various isolated microenvironments (fish in Nigerian lakes, birds in the Galapagos, etc).
"It's really amusing because the list of vestigal organs has decreased dramatically with research."
Source? Evidence?
And if you're right, it's pretty obvious that this will happen - if at first we find an obvious use for an organ, it won't go on the list. If later we find an obscure or subtle use for an organ, it'll get taken off the list. Do we often find organs that we think do something that (it turns out) do nothing at all? Not often, because we don't assign a particular job to an organ unless we see it doing something.
"I would say, as reasearch increases, the number of vestigal organs approaches zero."
Baseless personal faith. Where's the science?
"Now, there are faults in organs. This is a prediction of the creation model (remember the curse?) and is irrelevant either was to ID (which only says that some specific parts can be shown to be designed)."
Actually, ID (as proffered by the Kansas brigade) holds that all species were designed by God. I've never, ever, ever heard an IDer that posits only certain organs were designed, and the rest evolved naturally. You might believe that, but if you do you don't beleive "mainstream" ID.
And what curse? What, when God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden he also specified their livers wouldn't work as efficiently? Or that their trachea and oesphasuses would unnecessarily cross? It seems a bit... esoteric and subtle for the kind of God that would kill an entire city to make a point, or cast a family out of paradise.
Y'know... it sounds almost as if someone's offered a pretty good argument against the whole concept of ID, and the ID proponents' best answer is "Yeah... well... erm... he meant it like that, and he's ineffable, ok?". Do you realise how weak that sounds?
"Neither creationists nor ID'ers use that argument. Nice straw man."
Please explain how "We can't see how it could have evolved piece-by-piece, so it must have been designed" is substantially different to "We don't know how it happened, so it must have been done by God"?
"ID does not say that something must be improbable, but it must be improbable AND match characteristics that are known to be normal among designed things. BOTH have to apply to make the design inference. Dembski is working on making it empirically calculable."
Haaaaahahahahah! Define "designed thing". Now, if God created everything, please point to an example of a "non-designed thing". If God designed everything you don't have a "non-designed thing" to point to, so how do you presume to differentiate between them?
Here's a test:
I have a concept, called "squee". Computer mice are squee. Electric kettles are squee. Thermos flasks are squee. Do you think you can reliably identify another squee item? No, because you have no counter-examples, and so no good idea what constitutes a squee item.
Indeed. And with this recent and fortuitous New Scientist article, there's even the possibility of comparatively complex life-forms surviving in space, allowing complete, high-order organisms to conduct some form of panspermia.
I also notice the IDer I was responding to hasn't come back on any of the points I raise... yet again...
"None of that is true. I'm a lecturer in a UK university, and frankly, I think the problems with you are all too clear from your inventions and hysterical tone."
My apologies - my tone wasn't intended to be hysterical, and I assure you this is exactly and only my own personal experience, at a well-known university in the east of England, studying Computer Science BSc (Hons), between 1997 and 2001.
Although it's not phrased in a warm, cuddly way, I stand by every assertion, either as a hard fact, or as soemthing communicated to me by the university authorities during the disciplinary process.
It's important to note I bear no ill-will towards my university - I loved my time there and (apart from the one terrible lecturer and head of department with a grudge) I had a great time.
"1. You have no right to a free lawyer, but that is because you are not being tried for a criminal offence. The NUS can and will provide you with a lawyer if you asked. They are not "unpaid volunteers"."
When I was hauled up in front of the Proctor (first stage of the disciplinary process) I was told not to seek any outside legal representation or council, as it would constitute a further disciplinary offence. This was re-iterated when (due to the "severity" of the offence) it was referred a full Disciplinary Hearing.
I was informed a day or two before the Disciplinary Hearing that I may represent myself, or have another member of the university (or SU representative - in the end I was alotted an unpaid, student, SU volunteer) stand in my stead. I was also informed that I should have been given this choice of representation by the Proctor, at the very beginning of the process, weeks earlier, only he had neglected to do so (no explanation or apology given).
"2. Universities cannot prevent freedom of speech, that is just a lie."
I was informed that I had contravened the university's disciplinary regulations by stating in public something which "insulted a member of the university".
I countered that I had stated the truth, and provided as evidence the web-pages that they had cited, with verbatim quoted statements from the lecturer concerned, an analysis of what was incorrect or misleading about them, and the "correct" statement in each case.
I was then informed that had I merely called him a rude name or questioned his parentage, the offence would have been clearly just a personal dig, and merited only a slap on the wrist. The fact that I provided documentary evidence (that they accepted as real) made it a more serious offence, since I was clearly correct, and this embarrassed the university.
I re-iterate that I had already sought to resolve this under the university's own discrete, internal processes, and had my complaint brushed under the carpet (as several high-up members of the department had warned me it might) by the head of department. She was ultimately responsible for the lecturer's hiring, I was informed, so she would be left with egg on her face in the event he was found unfit to do his job.
Ultimately I received only really a slap on the wrist. The Head of Department was admitted to have gone overboard due to a personal personal grudge against me, and at the end of the year stepped down and became merely Senior Lecturer (leaving the year after). The lecturer I originally complained about was retained on staff, but was assigned to teach first years from then on, on a different subject (presumably on the basis they were less likely to spot mistakes, and giving other lecturers 2 further years to correct any misinformation he communicated).
"3. All universities will send you a copy of their procedures on request."
Indeed, although I believe I said "Most universities don't make a complete copy of their disciplinary rules and regulations easily available". You may indeed be able to specifically request a complete copy of the regulation, but they aren't offered anywhere public (eg,
Oh, I'd be incensed if I didn't get it back too, but I doubt I would.
When you join a college or university you aren't purchasing a product or hiring a service, you're joining a club. When you join a club you implicitely agree to follow that club's rules. If you don't follow the rules, they can kick you out with impunity.
A private club is owned by the owners, and they have complete discretion as regards who's a member of it. If they want to, they can kick you out of a private club for anything - breaking the rules, standing up for yourself, being gay, being black, anything.
Obviously this overlaps somewhat with anti-discrimination laws, but as a rule a "private members club" has much, much more discretion than a "vendor" or a "service provider".
Yay! A large and disparate collection of writings written over 2000 years ago, first assembled some 300 years after they were written, and selectively edited, deleted and organised into a single volume by a large collection of ordinary people, translated from a language that doesn't even share an alphabet with yours, into a book that exists in half-a-dozen differing versions, and you take the literal interpretation of one passage of one of these variations as literal truth?
Basic Common Sense 101? My friend, you fail it.
Just in case that doesn't convince you (because it won't), a quick question:
If Genesis is the literal and complete truth in every detail[1], who did Cain and Abel have kids with?
Come on - who did they fuck? Couldn't have been Eve, could it? And if God had created other people it's not detailed in Genesis, is it? And if you allow for a second for the much-translated Genesis story to not be the actual, complete, unadulterated word of God... what's wrong with assuming it's all a metaphor? Or that God "created" humanity through evolution, then took the "first two" of them into the garden of eden?
Sorry chum - your dogma isn't even internally consistent, and so collapses under the weight of its own BS.
[1] Which, given there are two differing versions in the modern Bible, pretty much proves your "literal, complete" answer wrong anyway...
Exactly, so both Cain and Abel are either gay sinners or incestuous sinners. Either way they're both sinners, and so should both be cast out (as, in fact, only Cain was).
It was about this point in the coversation people would start getting tetchy and red-faced with me.
Really, if your blindly literal reading of a text can't stand up to a few innocent questions from a six-year-old kid, what in the hell are you doing still believing it?
Never got a good answer to that one, either, since I got old enough to ask it. >:-)
"Just for the record: it was a joke. Tongue-in-cheek, but still a joke."
Agh. IHBT. IHL. HAND.;-p
"And, quoting another reply, "The salient point here is that evolution is the truth (...)""
With respect, that's completely irrelevent. Just because one person (wrongly) slips up and confuses their (well-substantiated, critically evaluated by the best minds of the species) beliefs with fact doesn't excuse other people deliberately and willingly trying to do the same with their (demonstrably wrong, completely baseless) beliefs.
"I agree with you: ID is not science. But the fact is, evolution is not only taught as science (as in knowledge), it's taught as the truth (a dogma)."
So ID proponents say. And yet any science teacher worth his/her salt won't teach it like this, since it's flat-out Wrong. And contrary to the entire spirit of what they're teaching. Sure, they may dismiss debating it in class because it's so well-accepted it's a waste of learning-time to discuss it there and then, but that's a long way from inculcating kids with dogma.
Frankly, if anyone knows of a teacher that teaches evolution as dogma, you should politely complain to or about them. It is not an excuse or reason to debase or pollute science, twist simple definitions to fit a biased agenda, or to attempt to dismantle an objective and vital institution simple because it conflicts with their personal uneducated prejudices.
And, thought I hate to say it, I've still never met an ID proponent who actually understood evolution, or even simple definitions like "theory", "hypothesis" or"conjecture".
It's hard to take criticism seriously when people obviously don't understand whatever it is they're writing off.
"I've never heard a biology teacher saying evolution is a possible explanation, only that it's the explanation for the origin of man."
Then you have poor biology teachers. Sure, I've never heard biology teachers single out evolution as especially suspect, but then it's not. Every theory taught in science is open to informed skepticism, and carries the automatic caveat this may subsequently turn out to be wrong.
Anyone seriously claiming evolution is proved and explicitely negating that caveat is no more a scientist (and no more qualified to teach science) than an athiest is qualified to teach religion.
"That's why I believe both theories should be taught together."
See, you've fallen into the Id/Creationist trap again. Evolution is a theory, ID is a conjecture, a baseless speculation. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, sine it's not remotely testable (or at least, can always be reformulated such that it can never be falsified).
Theories (some of which have been disproven): Relativity Newtonian Gravity Evolution Quantum Mechanics / Quantum Electrodynamics
Hypotheses: "This is my first post to slashdot" (testable by checking my previous post-count) String "theory" (we don't have the technology)
Conjecture: ID Flying Spaghetti Monsterism "The universe is run by Invisible Yellow Fairies"
I think the subtly-different RAW/RS version is a little bit more apposite for this discussion[1], but it does explain where they got it from.
Good point on Buddhists not having a problem with evolution, too. I've always thought you could draw a spectrum from centralised, dogmatic, "received wisdom" faiths (like Fundamentalist Christianity/Islam) through to decentralised, adaptable "discovered wisdom" faiths like Buddhism, Discordianism (don't laugh, there's a serious philosophy buried in there) or Wicca.
The centralised religions tend to acquire great wealth and influence because of their organised nature, but that very need to keep all believers marching in lock-step leads to dogma, stagnation and eventual irrelevence. The decentralised religions emphasise personal exploration and questioning which, while denying them and their institutions overt power, helps them avoid dogma and stay relevant and "sane" indefinitely.
While I don't subscribe to any particular religion, I have a lot more respect for the philosophies of decentralised religions than centralised ones.
[1] The quote goes on to say "they mistook the map for the territory, and tried to live in it - mistook the menu for the food, and tried to eat it", making it clear their error is one of confusing metalevels, not just dogmatically believing what they're told.
"This is not meant to be a personal attack but a dialogue and exercise in thinking."
Okey-dokey, shoot. (And thanks for responding quietly and intelligently to my slightly... exasperated... GPP.;-)
"You do not find it "daft" to think that we were created from some primordial stew which was transformed in some way to create 2 of a species which evolved out of this stew that went on to procreate and evolve into what we are today?"
Nope. Firstly, all of the first "live" organisms were asexually reproducing, so you only need one of the organism, not two arising simultaneously (which would, admittedly, require truly absurb levels of chance).
Secondly, you're talking about abiogenesis here, which is slightly different from "evolution". As it happens I also believe abiogenesis is possible, so I'll carry on...
Thirdly, yes - I do find the idea that a random bunch of chemicals sloshing about in a particular tide-pool somewhere could give rise to all life on earth somewhat hard to take.
However, when you consider the entire earth's surface as the reaction dish, it's a little less hard to take. With the recent discovery of the elemental building-blocks of life even in interstellar space, you can likely factor in the entire surface area of every sufficiently energy-rich surface (planet, asteroid interior, moon) in the entire universe, and it's less of a stretch again. Then factor in the fact that the universe has had ample resources of solid matter heavier than helium (ingredients for life) for about 12.7 billion years (+/- 0.2 billion)), and that adds up to an awful lot of sloshing and an awful lot of chances...
Don't get me wrong - I fully realise how unlikely all this sounds, but OTOH:
1) We're dealing with durations and quantities that simply can't fit into the human imagination. We mistakenly (and automatically) use "not in a million years" as synonymous with "never"... But you could make an argument that for anything that happened even roughly once in a million years, since the Big Bang it "should" actually have happened about 14,000 times!
2) It is theoretically possible. Extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible. It's "allowed", given even our current understanding of science, and doesn't posit a single additional requirement.
(Forgive me, but:) A big (self-created!) magical beard in the sky who can selectively disregard laws of physics at will and (despite not being remotely human) seems to display all-too-human motives and reactions is contrary to everything we know so far. Even if we accept it's possible he's literally omnipotent, we have no explanation for how it's even possible. To do so would require we begin by throwing out every single scientific tenet we've ever accepted, on no evidence whatsoever.
Basically, it's a case of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. Science gives one explanation which, while unlikely, is theoretically possible. Religion gives an answer which (as far as we know) isn't possible, and provides not an ounce of evidence to support it.
"Give me one example (besides Frankenstein) where life was created from non-life."
When you eat dead flesh or vegetables, and your body breaks it down and turns the non-living atoms and chemicals into living tissue? Or not even organic food, but synthetic drugs, or Lithium, or charcoal biscuits for indigestion?
If you want an example of a bunch of inanimate chemicals spontaneously giving rise to life, well, haven't we just got through agreeing how incredibly unlikely it is to happen in any particular place at any particular time? So what are the odds of it happening twice, in (when you look at the time-scales involved) quick succession?
Slashdot Mirror
"The Church that He started, quite obviously: The Catholic Church."
Well, historical accounts seem to disagree whether the "Catholic Church" proper was started directly by Christ, or if it was started as many as 400-500 years after his death.
There's actually quite an eye-opening difference between the accounts of early christian history as viewed by Roman Catholics and as viewed by "religious liberals" and historians.
I'm not doubting that Catholics devoutly and feverently believe that their version is the literal truth, but I'm afraid in a dispute between a group of people who have no evidence but have a vested interest in claiming a direct conenction to the messiah, and another group of disinterested people who do have evidence and are pointing out many problems with that claim, my money would be on the disinterested party with documentary evidence as being more correct...
"It is the original Bible texts which are flawless, and possibly the Vulgate. The Vulgate was translated in the 5th century by St. Jerome. Not only did he have all the original texts available, but he was very fluent in the languages involved. I haven't done the research to back this statement, but perhaps the translation was also protected from err."
Well, it appears that St. Jerome wrote at least three slightly different versions of the Vulgate, so that rather scotches the idea that it was mystically protected in any way from error...
It's also interesting that the Gallicana Vulgate, the second version, became the standard text of the Roman Catholic church. If it was the original version you could make a case that the later versions were mistaken distortions/revisions of an original perfect translation. If it was the third version (the most faithful translation from the Hebrew) you could make the case that it was a progressive improvement ending with a perfect translation. The fact it's the middle one of a series of differing versions leaves no such conclusion, apart from that it was an arbitrary historical accident as to which was taken as your "perfect" translation.
Also interesting is the passage in the Wikipedia article (yeah, usual Wikipedia caveats) that states: "In the other Vulgates [Romana and Gallicana] the Psalms were mostly translated from Greek, but were checked against Hebrew and Aramaic sources; this was done since they were already very familiar to the worshippers in this form and a completely new translation of the Psalms was felt to be too radical a change".
This suggests that with the previous two versions St Jerome was already editing or self-censoring his translations (to some extent) to conform more closely to the preconceptions of his audience. I'm not suggesting that he deliberately produced wildly inaccurate translations, but it graphically demonstrates that "perfectly accurate translation" wasn't his sole aim - he was also well aware of the effect any differences would have on his audience, and was seeking to minimise them.
"Huh? How could Genesis be *complete*? I'm sure you can easily demonstrate missing info-- possibly something so obvious as the kind of fruit on the tree of knowledge (assuming it was fruit)."
I have absolutely no idea. But many Christian Fundamentalists I've spoken to hold that Genesis is the whole, complete and unedited story of humanity's creation.
Otherwise, it would be possible that (say) God created Adam and Eve as the first "modern" humans (homo sapiens), and that Cain and Seth took homoerectus or Neanderthal wives (depending on when you envision Genesis taking place against the background of "human" evolution).
This would allow for a fairly neat squaring of Genesis with the established scientific consensus, and moreover one where it
I was trying (in a hurry, and exceptionally poorly, admittedly) to suggest that merely because someone (or, in this case, a country) invents a technology, that doesn't automatically mean they have the right to control it indefinitely, especially if it subsequently becomes an important part of the technological progress of the entire world. Even patents expire eventually, and having any kind of monopoly on an advancement to the whole human race is never a good thing, although (no judgement) I know this meme isn't exactly popular in the mainstream/commercial US.
The mention of TB-L and the web was intended to show that if this was considered acceptable, the UK (or Europe) could make a case for being able to dictate to the US elements of the web and HTTP management, and I think that's clearly ludicrous. It's certainly violently offensive to the american mindset, whether or not "we" invented it...
And one could make the argument that the explosive adoption of the internet was driven by the web - it's widely recognised that HTTP and the web were the "killer app" that drew people in. How long had e-mail and Usenet been around before the web? Why else did the commercial and social rise of the internet synchronise so well with the advent of the world wide web?
Had the web not come along "the internet" would have consisted of usenet, e-mail gateways and similarly less sexy/more "niche" services. It would have grown slowly and organically, and while dispute over its governance would have been a lot longer coming, the stakes would also have been lower.
FWIW I'm pretty agnostic on the ICANN/UN conflict. I can see good arguments for keeping it with ICANN (although I do seem to remember the majority of US Slashdotters bitching incessantly about them before this all flared up), but I can also see good reasons for removing the US government's potential authority over the net, and giving it to an independant international UN body (which is not the same as "giving China and Iran the casting vote", despite the US government's incessant FUD campaign on the issue).
Ultimately, this whole issue represents nothing but a lack of trust in the US by the entirety of the rest of the world. It's not really about root servers or DNS, but about the rest of the world simply no longer trusting the US to have such a hold over them.
It's admirable that the US is citing free speech concerns as reasons for not handing over control, but it's proven that (in recent history) it's not overly concerned with freedom or trustworthyness either.
I think the main problem is that other countries no longer trust the US not to potentially go on another cock-waving rampage and annex the whole internet, just like Afghanistan and Iraq. This isn't entirely logical, but when the big brother you always relied on turns into a lying, cheating bully, it's understandable that you'd get nervous about any tactical hold he still has over you.
Not really. I was just presenting an equally oversimplified (but diametrically opposed) view, to show the OP wasn't giving the whole story.
"The Bible is the Word of God organized by His one, true Church protected from err."
Which church? The Protestant church? The Catholic church? How about the Church of England? The Methodists? Evangelicals?
And which Bible? The C of E bible? The Catholic bible? The Good News bible? The Gideon bible?
They're all different, even if by small amounts. However, you can't claim it's "protected from err[ors]" if it changes at all, since any change can introduce errors. Unless you're positing some kind of spooky, mystical holy protection that means only unimportant changes happen to it that don't change its meaning. But frankly if that's the case, you're clearly way beyond logic already.
"While there *may* be problems with English translations, the Latin Vulgate is known to be nearly (if not completely) flawless."
Beep, wrong. You can never have a flawless translation between two languages, since they don't even have semantic maps that match up one-to-one - connotations, "strengths" of phrases, puns, alternative readings... all are lost during translation, since to translate each piece of text the translator firts has to decide on a meaning, then render this meaning in another language.
At best you'll get an inherently-flawed version of what the translator thinks the text is saying, often with a missing (or corrupted) context. Normally this isn't important, but when you're talking about translating into and out of multiple languages, and a text that millions of people base their lives around, calling it a flawless representation of the original text(s), when they were generated two thousand years ago, in a different language, different culture and different context is either mistaken or disingenuous.
"For those of us who can only read English, the Douay-Rhimes translation is the most accurate followed by the King James Version (which is partially based on DRV and missing 7 books in its modern form)."
You'll have no argument here that various versions are more or less accurate, merely that none are flawless, and so none have the right to claim they're "the literal word of God".
For example, translate "I am gay" into French.
Now, did you get
1) "Je suis gai" (I am merry), or
2) "Je suis homosexuel" (I am homosexual)?
Ask this question today, of a native english-speaker, and you'll probably get (2). Ask it of a non-english-speaker and you could get (1) or (2), depending on how good their colloquial English is. Ask it of anyone seventy years ago and you'll definitely get (1).
That's only dealing with language drift this century, and between two comparatively closely related languages. Now extend that time-span to two thousand years, and try doing it between languages that don't even share and alphabet. Oh, and don't forget that in Hebrew vowels are implied (not explicitely stated), leaving further opening for misreading and misinterpretation, even within the same language.
"Oh, and note that while it says how Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were created, it does *not* say "nothing else happened during this time" or "nobody else was born or created". You might also note that a large portion of the Bible (in particular, descendant lists) don't mention the women involved."
Right. Exactly. Except many fundamentalists insist that Genesis is the literal and complete word of God.
"FYI- God did not take them to the Garden of Eden, they were alreaedy there."
But if they had evolved naturally, they would have to have been brought into the garden. They can only be created there if God creates them, and I was providing alternative, non-evolution-contradicting versions. Read the post you're replying to.
"Interesting that folks are accepting of a 400 yer old Noah, but not that when god told the authors of the bible he created heaven and earth in a day, he meant a modern 24 hours."
Firstly, a genetic freak that survives for four times the normal lifespan of an organism, while unlikely for high-order creatures, is theoretically possible given what we know. The life-extension work done on Nematode worms, for example, has achieved extensions comparable to this.
Secondly, nope - most folks just ignore a 400 year old Noah, not accept it. We'd be happy to ignore Genesis, too, if fuckwit fundamentalists didn't keep trying to ram it down our throats. On the day a broad-based coalition of religious zealots stands up, opposes clocks and propounds a theory of Intelligent Lifespan-Extension to explain Noah's survival, then yes, we'll all point out how completely unlikely and lacking in evidence that was, too.
Oh balls.
TB-L invented the web, which turned "the internet" from an academic curiosity into the world-spanning (but still US-run) institution it is today.
Of course you knew what I meant, but it was phrased exceptionally badly. Curse this dashing comments off quickly at work before the boss notices.
Still, way to fuck up making a perfectly valid point, right? <:-)
The UK (Tim Berners-Lee) and Europe (CERN) invented the thing. The US wouldn't even have "an internet" if if had been patented, or if the IP hadn't been made freely available and licence-unencumbered...
And if there's one thing the US is world-famous for in modern times, it's wading into other people's countries, snaffling everything it wants and telling them what to do.
Before getting on your high horse I'd first check it's not a shetland pony.
No, gravitons are gravitons. Invisible yellow pixies are invisible yellow pixies.
But the great thing about Occam's Razor is that if you take the "Invisible Yellow Pixies" theory and apply Occam's Razor to it, once you've bent it to match the evidence and stripped away all the other extraneous bits, then "Invisible Yellow Pixies" do tend towards resembling "gravitons".
We don't know if gravitons even have a real existence (they're merely implied by quantum mechanics), but if quantum mechanics is correct on this (eg, we prove spacetime curvature is quantized), gravitons are then the "simplest" explanation that explains the observed evidence.
At the moment spacetime appears to be continuous, so we use Relativity. If/when a quantum theory of gravity is proposed, and explains evidence Relativity can't, Quantum Gravity becomes the explanation that Occam's Razor would lead us to.
What was your point?
My apologies - it didn't look at all like that was what you meant.
;-)
All the talk about "Forget[ting] about "scientists" studying him", "signing up with some pharmaceutical company", "reap[ing] some MAJOR benefits" and "requiring some VERY high payment" kind of overshadowed the (implied) bit at the bottom about "THEN to own the patent on whatever drugs they come up with"...
Nah. Way more fun was IDCHOPPERS - Switches God mode on, gives you/selects the chainsaw and prints "Doesn't suck - GM" at the top of the screen.
Deary, deary me. Occam's Razor says "don't multiply entities needlessly". Emphasis on the needlessly.
Increasing complication of scientific theories doesn't negate Occam's Razor, since the entities aren't multiplied needlessly.
However, asserting that (for example) gravity isn't caused by curvature of space through the forth dimension, but is in fact conjured into existence by invisible yellow pixies is against Occam's Razor, since the curvature of space is the simpler explanation, explains the observations, is supported by more evidence and requires the fewest "new" elements to be added.
Congratulations on being an amoral capitalist scumbag.
Personally I'd only co-operate if I was given a cast-iron guarantee that any patents arising from it were donated free of charge to the WHO (or similar), and made available for free licencing to anyone who wanted to manufacture the drug.
It's about curing an incurable plague and helping save millions of lives a year, not about getting rich.
Indeed. If you get rid of the literal interpretation of Genesis.
If you insist on sticking to it (God made Adam & Eve, and they had Cain, Abel, and Seth and that's it), you're stuffed, because God doesn't spend a while lot of time talking about neanderthals or homoerectus in Genesis, so Creationists tend to ignore or deny them.
So it's not "easy" for Creationists, but rather incontrovertibly proves their literal interpretation is internally inconsistent... ie, just wrong.
Indeed, but you're falling perilously close to the "judgement is evil, and all points of view are equally good" meme that's so prevalent in our western culture (especially the USa) today.
It's also important to re-iterate (again) that science doesn't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever claim to be Right. Its strongest claim is that it provides the best answer so far.
And yes, there are different models, but that doesn't mean they're all worth the same, or that any given one is worth anything. Another "model" would be that the world (complete with us and our memories) was created 2.5 seconds ago by 37 invisible yellow pixies. This is indeed another model, but does it deserve serious consideration? How about teaching in high-school science classes?
Clearly not, because it's baseless speculation, not falsifiable and doesn't have a shred of evidence in favour of it.
Replace ID with the Invisible Yellow Pixies above, and the situation's the same.
"It depends on what you mean by evolution. ID is incompatible with Darwinism as a primary causitive factor, but not other forms of evolution."
I was talking about evolution as it's understood by the majority of scientists and educated people in the world - Darwinian evolution. I'm well aware Creationists/IDers support microevolution (since even they can't deny that). However, could you possibly point to the exact point that separates microevolution from macroevolution?
If microevolution can give rise to small changes, and lots of small changes over a long period of time can give rise to larger and larger changes, and macroevolution is the rise of large changes, why is microevolution possible buy macroevolution not, again?
Please precisely define where the separation between micro- and macroevolution is. Bear in mind it's not even "speciation", since scientists have found pretty much incontrovertible snapshots of it happening in various isolated microenvironments (fish in Nigerian lakes, birds in the Galapagos, etc).
"It's really amusing because the list of vestigal organs has decreased dramatically with research."
Source? Evidence?
And if you're right, it's pretty obvious that this will happen - if at first we find an obvious use for an organ, it won't go on the list. If later we find an obscure or subtle use for an organ, it'll get taken off the list. Do we often find organs that we think do something that (it turns out) do nothing at all? Not often, because we don't assign a particular job to an organ unless we see it doing something.
"I would say, as reasearch increases, the number of vestigal organs approaches zero."
Baseless personal faith. Where's the science?
"Now, there are faults in organs. This is a prediction of the creation model (remember the curse?) and is irrelevant either was to ID (which only says that some specific parts can be shown to be designed)."
Actually, ID (as proffered by the Kansas brigade) holds that all species were designed by God. I've never, ever, ever heard an IDer that posits only certain organs were designed, and the rest evolved naturally. You might believe that, but if you do you don't beleive "mainstream" ID.
And what curse? What, when God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden he also specified their livers wouldn't work as efficiently? Or that their trachea and oesphasuses would unnecessarily cross? It seems a bit... esoteric and subtle for the kind of God that would kill an entire city to make a point, or cast a family out of paradise.
Y'know... it sounds almost as if someone's offered a pretty good argument against the whole concept of ID, and the ID proponents' best answer is "Yeah... well... erm... he meant it like that, and he's ineffable, ok?". Do you realise how weak that sounds?
"Neither creationists nor ID'ers use that argument. Nice straw man."
Please explain how "We can't see how it could have evolved piece-by-piece, so it must have been designed" is substantially different to "We don't know how it happened, so it must have been done by God"?
"ID does not say that something must be improbable, but it must be improbable AND match characteristics that are known to be normal among designed things. BOTH have to apply to make the design inference. Dembski is working on making it empirically calculable."
Haaaaahahahahah! Define "designed thing". Now, if God created everything, please point to an example of a "non-designed thing". If God designed everything you don't have a "non-designed thing" to point to, so how do you presume to differentiate between them?
Here's a test:
I have a concept, called "squee". Computer mice are squee. Electric kettles are squee. Thermos flasks are squee. Do you think you can reliably identify another squee item? No, because you have no counter-examples, and so no good idea what constitutes a squee item.
If I tell
Indeed. And with this recent and fortuitous New Scientist article, there's even the possibility of comparatively complex life-forms surviving in space, allowing complete, high-order organisms to conduct some form of panspermia.
...
I also notice the IDer I was responding to hasn't come back on any of the points I raise... yet again
Heh, touché. I was ignoring that for simplicity's sake, but yes.
So, who (according to a Creationist, literal interpretation of Genesis) did Cain and Seth take as wives?
Exactly. Which is a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, and as such one that makes perfect sense.
This is not, however, the Creationist position, and that's my point.
"None of that is true. I'm a lecturer in a UK university, and frankly, I think the problems with you are all too clear from your inventions and hysterical tone."
My apologies - my tone wasn't intended to be hysterical, and I assure you this is exactly and only my own personal experience, at a well-known university in the east of England, studying Computer Science BSc (Hons), between 1997 and 2001.
Although it's not phrased in a warm, cuddly way, I stand by every assertion, either as a hard fact, or as soemthing communicated to me by the university authorities during the disciplinary process.
It's important to note I bear no ill-will towards my university - I loved my time there and (apart from the one terrible lecturer and head of department with a grudge) I had a great time.
"1. You have no right to a free lawyer, but that is because you are not being tried for a criminal offence. The NUS can and will provide you with a lawyer if you asked. They are not "unpaid volunteers"."
When I was hauled up in front of the Proctor (first stage of the disciplinary process) I was told not to seek any outside legal representation or council, as it would constitute a further disciplinary offence. This was re-iterated when (due to the "severity" of the offence) it was referred a full Disciplinary Hearing.
I was informed a day or two before the Disciplinary Hearing that I may represent myself, or have another member of the university (or SU representative - in the end I was alotted an unpaid, student, SU volunteer) stand in my stead. I was also informed that I should have been given this choice of representation by the Proctor, at the very beginning of the process, weeks earlier, only he had neglected to do so (no explanation or apology given).
"2. Universities cannot prevent freedom of speech, that is just a lie."
I was informed that I had contravened the university's disciplinary regulations by stating in public something which "insulted a member of the university".
I countered that I had stated the truth, and provided as evidence the web-pages that they had cited, with verbatim quoted statements from the lecturer concerned, an analysis of what was incorrect or misleading about them, and the "correct" statement in each case.
I was then informed that had I merely called him a rude name or questioned his parentage, the offence would have been clearly just a personal dig, and merited only a slap on the wrist. The fact that I provided documentary evidence (that they accepted as real) made it a more serious offence, since I was clearly correct, and this embarrassed the university.
I re-iterate that I had already sought to resolve this under the university's own discrete, internal processes, and had my complaint brushed under the carpet (as several high-up members of the department had warned me it might) by the head of department. She was ultimately responsible for the lecturer's hiring, I was informed, so she would be left with egg on her face in the event he was found unfit to do his job.
Ultimately I received only really a slap on the wrist. The Head of Department was admitted to have gone overboard due to a personal personal grudge against me, and at the end of the year stepped down and became merely Senior Lecturer (leaving the year after). The lecturer I originally complained about was retained on staff, but was assigned to teach first years from then on, on a different subject (presumably on the basis they were less likely to spot mistakes, and giving other lecturers 2 further years to correct any misinformation he communicated).
"3. All universities will send you a copy of their procedures on request."
Indeed, although I believe I said "Most universities don't make a complete copy of their disciplinary rules and regulations easily available". You may indeed be able to specifically request a complete copy of the regulation, but they aren't offered anywhere public (eg,
Oh, I'd be incensed if I didn't get it back too, but I doubt I would.
When you join a college or university you aren't purchasing a product or hiring a service, you're joining a club. When you join a club you implicitely agree to follow that club's rules. If you don't follow the rules, they can kick you out with impunity.
A private club is owned by the owners, and they have complete discretion as regards who's a member of it. If they want to, they can kick you out of a private club for anything - breaking the rules, standing up for yourself, being gay, being black, anything.
Obviously this overlaps somewhat with anti-discrimination laws, but as a rule a "private members club" has much, much more discretion than a "vendor" or a "service provider".
Yay! A large and disparate collection of writings written over 2000 years ago, first assembled some 300 years after they were written, and selectively edited, deleted and organised into a single volume by a large collection of ordinary people, translated from a language that doesn't even share an alphabet with yours, into a book that exists in half-a-dozen differing versions, and you take the literal interpretation of one passage of one of these variations as literal truth?
Basic Common Sense 101? My friend, you fail it.
Just in case that doesn't convince you (because it won't), a quick question:
If Genesis is the literal and complete truth in every detail[1], who did Cain and Abel have kids with?
Come on - who did they fuck? Couldn't have been Eve, could it? And if God had created other people it's not detailed in Genesis, is it? And if you allow for a second for the much-translated Genesis story to not be the actual, complete, unadulterated word of God... what's wrong with assuming it's all a metaphor? Or that God "created" humanity through evolution, then took the "first two" of them into the garden of eden?
Sorry chum - your dogma isn't even internally consistent, and so collapses under the weight of its own BS.
[1] Which, given there are two differing versions in the modern Bible, pretty much proves your "literal, complete" answer wrong anyway...
Exactly, so both Cain and Abel are either gay sinners or incestuous sinners. Either way they're both sinners, and so should both be cast out (as, in fact, only Cain was).
It was about this point in the coversation people would start getting tetchy and red-faced with me.
Really, if your blindly literal reading of a text can't stand up to a few innocent questions from a six-year-old kid, what in the hell are you doing still believing it?
Never got a good answer to that one, either, since I got old enough to ask it. >:-)
"Just for the record: it was a joke. Tongue-in-cheek, but still a joke."
;-p
Agh. IHBT. IHL. HAND.
"And, quoting another reply, "The salient point here is that evolution is the truth (...)""
With respect, that's completely irrelevent. Just because one person (wrongly) slips up and confuses their (well-substantiated, critically evaluated by the best minds of the species) beliefs with fact doesn't excuse other people deliberately and willingly trying to do the same with their (demonstrably wrong, completely baseless) beliefs.
"I agree with you: ID is not science. But the fact is, evolution is not only taught as science (as in knowledge), it's taught as the truth (a dogma)."
So ID proponents say. And yet any science teacher worth his/her salt won't teach it like this, since it's flat-out Wrong. And contrary to the entire spirit of what they're teaching. Sure, they may dismiss debating it in class because it's so well-accepted it's a waste of learning-time to discuss it there and then, but that's a long way from inculcating kids with dogma.
Frankly, if anyone knows of a teacher that teaches evolution as dogma, you should politely complain to or about them. It is not an excuse or reason to debase or pollute science, twist simple definitions to fit a biased agenda, or to attempt to dismantle an objective and vital institution simple because it conflicts with their personal uneducated prejudices.
And, thought I hate to say it, I've still never met an ID proponent who actually understood evolution, or even simple definitions like "theory", "hypothesis" or"conjecture".
It's hard to take criticism seriously when people obviously don't understand whatever it is they're writing off.
"I've never heard a biology teacher saying evolution is a possible explanation, only that it's the explanation for the origin of man."
Then you have poor biology teachers. Sure, I've never heard biology teachers single out evolution as especially suspect, but then it's not. Every theory taught in science is open to informed skepticism, and carries the automatic caveat this may subsequently turn out to be wrong.
Anyone seriously claiming evolution is proved and explicitely negating that caveat is no more a scientist (and no more qualified to teach science) than an athiest is qualified to teach religion.
"That's why I believe both theories should be taught together."
See, you've fallen into the Id/Creationist trap again. Evolution is a theory, ID is a conjecture, a baseless speculation. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, sine it's not remotely testable (or at least, can always be reformulated such that it can never be falsified).
Theories (some of which have been disproven):
Relativity
Newtonian Gravity
Evolution
Quantum Mechanics / Quantum Electrodynamics
Hypotheses:
"This is my first post to slashdot" (testable by checking my previous post-count)
String "theory" (we don't have the technology)
Conjecture:
ID
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
"The universe is run by Invisible Yellow Fairies"
See any connection there?
Hrm, interesting. Cheers for the reference!
I think the subtly-different RAW/RS version is a little bit more apposite for this discussion[1], but it does explain where they got it from.
Good point on Buddhists not having a problem with evolution, too. I've always thought you could draw a spectrum from centralised, dogmatic, "received wisdom" faiths (like Fundamentalist Christianity/Islam) through to decentralised, adaptable "discovered wisdom" faiths like Buddhism, Discordianism (don't laugh, there's a serious philosophy buried in there) or Wicca.
The centralised religions tend to acquire great wealth and influence because of their organised nature, but that very need to keep all believers marching in lock-step leads to dogma, stagnation and eventual irrelevence. The decentralised religions emphasise personal exploration and questioning which, while denying them and their institutions overt power, helps them avoid dogma and stay relevant and "sane" indefinitely.
While I don't subscribe to any particular religion, I have a lot more respect for the philosophies of decentralised religions than centralised ones.
[1] The quote goes on to say "they mistook the map for the territory, and tried to live in it - mistook the menu for the food, and tried to eat it", making it clear their error is one of confusing metalevels, not just dogmatically believing what they're told.
"This is not meant to be a personal attack but a dialogue and exercise in thinking."
;-)
Okey-dokey, shoot. (And thanks for responding quietly and intelligently to my slightly... exasperated... GPP.
"You do not find it "daft" to think that we were created from some primordial stew which was transformed in some way to create 2 of a species which evolved out of this stew that went on to procreate and evolve into what we are today?"
Nope. Firstly, all of the first "live" organisms were asexually reproducing, so you only need one of the organism, not two arising simultaneously (which would, admittedly, require truly absurb levels of chance).
Secondly, you're talking about abiogenesis here, which is slightly different from "evolution". As it happens I also believe abiogenesis is possible, so I'll carry on...
Thirdly, yes - I do find the idea that a random bunch of chemicals sloshing about in a particular tide-pool somewhere could give rise to all life on earth somewhat hard to take.
However, when you consider the entire earth's surface as the reaction dish, it's a little less hard to take. With the recent discovery of the elemental building-blocks of life even in interstellar space, you can likely factor in the entire surface area of every sufficiently energy-rich surface (planet, asteroid interior, moon) in the entire universe, and it's less of a stretch again. Then factor in the fact that the universe has had ample resources of solid matter heavier than helium (ingredients for life) for about 12.7 billion years (+/- 0.2 billion)), and that adds up to an awful lot of sloshing and an awful lot of chances...
Don't get me wrong - I fully realise how unlikely all this sounds, but OTOH:
1) We're dealing with durations and quantities that simply can't fit into the human imagination. We mistakenly (and automatically) use "not in a million years" as synonymous with "never"... But you could make an argument that for anything that happened even roughly once in a million years, since the Big Bang it "should" actually have happened about 14,000 times!
2) It is theoretically possible. Extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible. It's "allowed", given even our current understanding of science, and doesn't posit a single additional requirement.
(Forgive me, but:) A big (self-created!) magical beard in the sky who can selectively disregard laws of physics at will and (despite not being remotely human) seems to display all-too-human motives and reactions is contrary to everything we know so far. Even if we accept it's possible he's literally omnipotent, we have no explanation for how it's even possible. To do so would require we begin by throwing out every single scientific tenet we've ever accepted, on no evidence whatsoever.
Basically, it's a case of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. Science gives one explanation which, while unlikely, is theoretically possible. Religion gives an answer which (as far as we know) isn't possible, and provides not an ounce of evidence to support it.
"Give me one example (besides Frankenstein) where life was created from non-life."
When you eat dead flesh or vegetables, and your body breaks it down and turns the non-living atoms and chemicals into living tissue? Or not even organic food, but synthetic drugs, or Lithium, or charcoal biscuits for indigestion?
If you want an example of a bunch of inanimate chemicals spontaneously giving rise to life, well, haven't we just got through agreeing how incredibly unlikely it is to happen in any particular place at any particular time? So what are the odds of it happening twice, in (when you look at the time-scales involved) quick succession?
And how about the already-alive and ever-pre