 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
»
|
Ship of Fools
»
» Oblivion
»
Our galaxy has 200,000,000,000 stars & the universe has more galaxies than this (Page 0)
|
|
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Our galaxy has 200,000,000,000 stars & the universe has more galaxies than this
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ingo--
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't dismiss souls, but I don't buy the RC formula.
I'm sorry, what do you believe then that the RC teaches about souls? Since you are rejecting it, presumably you know what it is? Just to get you started, obviously "animals" ("anima" = soul in Latin) have souls.
Goodness, Ingo, that's practically Lutheran! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) (“Be thou comforted, little dog, Thou too in Resurrection shall have a little golden tail.”--Luther, possibly influenced by Romans 8.)
Next thing we know, you'll be singing and dancing the "Reformation Polka" with Martin and Katje.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 06. March 2015, 08:44: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Are you some kind of professional then?
Indeed.
quote:
Well, let's just say that I'm doing reasonably well in academic dick size comparisons.
We tend to leave the genitalia out of it, hoping that both genders will have equal opportunity. But I understand what you mean. The general move in academia here is to work with teams of people, and to be less personally grandiose and more research group oriented. Which I think is more productive and probably helped by moves toward gender equality.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. There is nothing in the evolutionary record that allows the drawing of a fence around humans.
I'd point you to the 1973 essay with the approximate title of this sentence, but it doesn't come up except in Wikipedia: Link
I hold that our ancient and biblical stories makes sense, and that the authors and tellers of them are every bit as able and intelligent as us, and perhaps more focussed because they lacked TV and electronic distractions. But they lacked the factual knowledge we've gained. We need to consider our stories not as ancient and solidified accounts subject to no alteration, but as foundations upon which we must build. I can thus only accept the bible, for the most part, as allegory, mythology, poetry and a story of faith. Not as fact that must be reconciled with science. But it must not either attempt to compete in the details where science has shown the light.
I believe that we are just getting started on our understanding of life, the universe and everything. We mustn't try to fit science to a biblical procrustean bed. We must remain open to ancient wisdom, while appreciating its limitations.
I do agree with LeRoc that Star Trek is hard to overdo (except perhaps for Wesley or when Spock sings "Stepping into Eden").
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's funny how the more I see a theologically conservative position articulated, as in the ordination of women, homophobia, creationism of any degree, racism, placism, denominationalism, Zionism, divorce - where I have been the worst of sinners in conservatism - the more whatever side bets I have are hosed away.
And so it is here. I argued here alone for all too many years with a side bet on Eden. The final nails in that coffin were hammered by the paleontological collection of the Musée d'Angoulême five years ago and reading the works of Brian McLaren since.
Which leads me to my latest volte-face. It MUST be assumed for the sake of rationality, of soundness, until proven otherwise - which can never be, but practically can be and will be when we start to be able to detect exoplanet photosynthetic oxygen and can't on just hundreds of rainy worlds - that sapience is universal and therefore so is hypostatic union.
That Jesus was unique as an individual, a new Adam, but that eternity has had an infinity of new Adams and The Second Person incorporates them all.
For if it is rational, sound, meaningful, consistent for life and Saviours to be universal then it is for universes to be. For God to be eternally creator. No lesser orthodoxy can overturn that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So we could be better now than we are now? How?
Can't you think of 10,000 ways?
I can.
We could start by leaving violence behind us.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We tend to leave the genitalia out of it, hoping that both genders will have equal opportunity.
The dicks being compared are metaphorical, not biological. I thought your were keen on that distinction? Perhaps we can compare h-scores, if you must.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd point you to the 1973 essay with the approximate title of this sentence, but it doesn't come up except in Wikipedia: Link
Your Wikipedia entry actually links to the original article as a reference. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove to me with it though. That evolution has some reasonable support? Sure, why not? I'm not an anti-evolutionist (or general "creationist"). That does not change the fact that our evidence for hominid evolution is scant. And it does not change the fact that so far it is insufficient as a guide how the "Adam and Eve" story has to be interpreted.
I don't want to preempt you explaining the RC position to us. I'm rather looking forward to that. But as you presumably will mention some time soon, the RC position is compatible with an evolutionary origin of man. Up to a point.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We must remain open to ancient wisdom, while appreciating its limitations.
You are doing well on the latter, I will grant you that.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I couldn't agree more Boogie. It has to start with me. And it only just has, the past three years. Could it have happened earlier? No chance. The same as for in our evolution for the past half million years and more. God is wise and patient beyond belief.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That Jesus was unique as an individual, a new Adam, but that eternity has had an infinity of new Adams and The Second Person incorporates them all. For if it is rational, sound, meaningful, consistent for life and Saviours to be universal then it is for universes to be.
I take it then that the fall is also universal according to you? In which case, did we fall, or were we floored?
Most people would get a bit suspicious that the cards are stacked against them, if they lose a billion times in a row.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We tend to leave the genitalia out of it, hoping that both genders will have equal opportunity.
The dicks being compared are metaphorical, not biological. I thought your were keen on that distinction? Perhaps we can compare h-scores, if you must.
Sorry if it was too subtle. I was making the point that using the word 'dick' in such a way isn't appropriate. I hope you don't use it in academic contexts. H-scores is not something we use.
I get you're interested in competition. I'm not.
Thanks for the info re the essay is linked within the wiki entry. I was in a rush and didn't notice.
I'm not going to budge from the evolutionary history argument and evolved lack of specialness to a particular hominid species, which has acquired sentience and self awareness. I know you've got a different idea.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm not going to budge from the evolutionary history argument and evolved lack of specialness to a particular hominid species, which has acquired sentience and self awareness. I know you've got a different idea.
You are not going to budge from that based on what, precisely? Right now nobody in this entire world knows how sapience can emerge in a brain, and arguably we don't even know how sentience can be properly instantiated in wetware (qualia etc.). Neither is there a sufficient paleontological / pre-historic record to somehow trace the effects of that transition closely. All you have there is the conviction that this must have been natural "business as usual". Somehow. But such a conviction is not itself a scientific statement, it is at best philosophy and frankly more likely to be a kind of faith.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I'm always puzzled by the idea that anything in nature, which we do not yet, and may never, understand, requires the intervention of the Creator at any point.
I would have said that the Creator is, being supremely capable, able to initiate and sustain any intended series of results without specific intervention.
I see evolution as a example of artistic economy - within a universe of unlimited magnificence.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm not going to budge from the evolutionary history argument and evolved lack of specialness to a particular hominid species, which has acquired sentience and self awareness. I know you've got a different idea.
You are not going to budge from that based on what, precisely? Right now nobody in this entire world knows how sapience can emerge in a brain, and arguably we don't even know how sentience can be properly instantiated in wetware (qualia etc.). Neither is there a sufficient paleontological / pre-historic record to somehow trace the effects of that transition closely. All you have there is the conviction that this must have been natural "business as usual". Somehow. But such a conviction is not itself a scientific statement, it is at best philosophy and frankly more likely to be a kind of faith.
We do know actually quite a number of things. Such the series of genetic differences between humans and chimps that cause the understanding of grammar. It is rather involved to explain, and I cannot begin to to it justice, but if you're really interested, as an intro, forkheadboxp2 (FOXP2) is a good place to start.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not an anti-evolutionist (or general "creationist"). That does not change the fact that our evidence for hominid evolution is scant.
Really? Because the whole denying the existence of evidence is a standard creationist tactic.
As a point of clarification, when you say "hominid" are you referring to members of family Hominidæ (which contains all great apes) or more vernacular use meaning members of genus Homo (humans and their closest, now extinct, genetic relatives)? At any rate, aside from a variety of fossil evidence, doesn't the fact that we can identify things like the fusion point on human chromosome 2 strongly indicate descent with modification (i.e. evolution) in humans?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, there's a tangent there which you might consider taking to Dead Horses, the right place to discuss any aspect of creation and evolution.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, aside from a variety of fossil evidence, doesn't the fact that we can identify things like the fusion point on human chromosome 2 strongly indicate descent with modification (i.e. evolution) in humans?
I think IngoB's point is that the evidence for human evolution does not contain anything that would refute his speculations or the Catholic Church's teaching on human nature, and how it got that way. He's not arguing for creationism.
All he needs for his account to be possible (not proven, but possible) is a story of human development that allows there to have been a point where an individual animal first became, or was made, sufficiently self-aware, mentally, morally and spiritually, to count as a "human being" and for that individual to make a critical decision to obey or disobey God. IngoB doesn't even require (though I imagine he would think it likely) that this individual would biologically count as homo sapiens, or even be an ancestor of homo sapiens, to count as a "human being" in the special theological sense he is using. I think (though I'm less sure) that IngoB's story might even still work if there had been a social group or lineage of first human beings complicit in that fatal decision, rather than one or two erring individuals taking all the responsibility.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on evolution, but I fully accept it is true, and I don't know of anything that prevents me from seeing the mythical figures of Adam and Eve as place-holders for "the first humans to make a moral choice with lasting spiritual consequences, wherever in the history of life such beings existed". And that's all the Christian needs for the theology to work, I think.
[Cross-posted]
[ 06. March 2015, 22:31: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As I keep asking, what fall? From where? To what?
I can no longer maintain a side bet on Eden as having ANY meaning, apart from it being some Bronze Age genius' once-upon-a-time. Sapience itself is loss of dumb innocence. We lost that hundreds of thousands of years ago. When no one walked with us in that African garden.
And yet I bow to the Son of Man remembering Satan. We need a theology that embraces both. Well I do.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Martin60: Sapience itself is loss of dumb innocence. We lost that hundreds of thousands of years ago.
I know some people who still have it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye. Everyone but me I feel at times. Most times. All the time to be honest. And I can't think myself better either.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Such the series of genetic differences between humans and chimps that cause the understanding of grammar.
LOL. No, we don't. Correlation is not causation, much less mechanistic explanation, much less understanding. And yes, I do have some idea what I'm talking about. As it happens, I'm currently part of a consortium writing a Horizon 2020 grant application on ADHD, which includes data mining on GWAS, as well as neuroimaging. And both get you only so far, which is pretty much why my group (and other groups like mine) are in the mix. And one of my closer collaborators at the my university is a student of Noah Chomsky who is investigating grammar usage in humans with neuroimaging. Should I tell him that his career is over because somebody out there already knows how humans understand grammar? I think not. And hey, I'm also collaborating with people doing Bayesian estimations of ancestral gene networks with MCMC methods, and I have some idea what they are talking about. Because, you know, I can do maths. Since you are "not doing h-scores", like everybody in the "hard" sciences, I take it you are from the humanities? Well, talking the talk gets you only so far, then you have to walk the walk. And that turns out to be a different thing altogether...
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Really? Because the whole denying the existence of evidence is a standard creationist tactic.
Take your misrepresentations elsewhere. The record shows that I have not denied any evidence in the above. I have made the objectively true statement that there is little direct evidence for the evolution of hominids. Enough for someone who thinks that hominids have evolved to draw some kind of evolutionary tree? Sure. A correct tree? Quite possibly, though it has been changing as new evidence comes in now and then. But there simply isn't a massive fossil record, and genetic approaches rely on assumptions.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
All he needs for his account to be possible (not proven, but possible) is a story of human development that allows there to have been a point where an individual animal first became, or was made, sufficiently self-aware, mentally, morally and spiritually, to count as a "human being" and for that individual to make a critical decision to obey or disobey God. IngoB doesn't even require (though I imagine he would think it likely) that this individual would biologically count as homo sapiens, or even be an ancestor of homo sapiens, to count as a "human being" in the special theological sense he is using. I think (though I'm less sure) that IngoB's story might even still work if there had been a social group or lineage of first human beings complicit in that fatal decision, rather than one or two erring individuals taking all the responsibility.
That's all exactly on the money. And indeed, it is unclear to what extent a "group" rather than two individuals would work as "Adam and Eve". Basically because Catholics are always reluctant to lose the connection between the spiritual and corporeal (here: biological).
The most likely scenario (aside from my "Star Trek" speculations) is pretty much the Divine "enlightenment" of a couple among some super-bright apes, who had evolved as close as naturally possible to supporting a "true human" existence. I'm afraid the usually not spelled out consequence would be that the (human) offspring of Adam and Eve either engaged in complete interbreeding with each other or slept with animals (namely those super-bright, but not quite human, apes) to get the next generations of "true humans" going. Scriptural evidence (Cain taking a wife from surrounding people!) suggests the latter.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There's nothing 'likely' about it.
That's creationism.
For A&E to be of habiline stock means of the line H. habilis, erectus/ergaster, (antecessor), heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis, (floresiensis), neanderthalensis/sapiens. The latter were sapient at least. At least 130,000 years ago.
Sapience could easily be three to ten times older than that. In fact it HAS to be. We need a model of gradual/punctuated sapience. Oh look! Human ontogeny.
To shoe-horn in a repeatedly edited 4,000 year just-so story against that is utterly absurd.
An absurdity I engaged in for 40 years.
You are nailing the oh-so wooden coffin of magical ensoulment with your ever-so-big cranium just fine IngoB.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Steiner saw evolution as being strongly anthropocentric - with all of evolution being focussed on the creation of humankind. But then, I don't know how literally he meant this, or whether he was making a Goethen statement about the specific perspective necessary when considering certain topics of human existence. i.e. an earth-centred universe is also a useful pov for some purposes. Acknowledging this pov is being used helps to unravel when it IS being used... as we so often unthinkingly do. If you want to get a flavour of the power of this kind of shift in perspective, it's worth looking at e.g. a map of the world centred on Mecca or Peking or the north pole.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's nothing 'likely' about it. That's creationism.
That's not what is usually called "creationism". The label has been assigned previously, I do not belong to the people labeled by it, and to assign this label to me is nothing more than cheap rhetoric.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The latter were sapient at least. At least 130,000 years ago.
Whether Neanderthal was sapient is questionable. Anyway, it does not matter. Neither does it matter whether it was 10,000, 100,000 or a million years ago. The key question is quite simply whether sapience is entirely material, or not. I don't think it is. Hence it is impossible that it evolved, completely. And the "Adam and Eve" story is the best lead we have on how it came to be in this world.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We need a model of gradual/punctuated sapience.
If you believe that sapience supervenes on physical brain states, perhaps.
[ 07. March 2015, 13:55: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Correlation + explanation may not be precisely causation, but as Hume proved, we cannot prove causation anyway. Add successful prediction and you're getting closer. But at some point one has crossed over into denialism and become a creationist perhaps in all but name.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
I think that the astonishing immensity and variety of the observed Universe -- combined with the (thus far) observed rarity of beings/creatures like us -- makes us all that much more special rather than insignificant …
Self-organizing matter/energy ("life") contemplating itself is a really interesting deal, IMHO ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Correlation + explanation may not be precisely causation, but as Hume proved, we cannot prove causation anyway.
Hume proved that we cannot prove causation within the terms of classical empiricism.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
While we can't "prove" causation, we can and do experience it ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Its not Creationism is God of the gaps. We don't
yet have a full picture of something therefore God did it.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
There has already been a host post on this thread reminding posters that Ship policy on debates relating to creation and evolution is that they should take place in Dead Horses.
And just for clarity, arguing about what constitutes creationism is a subset of that debate.
There is plenty of scope for discussing the OP without engaging in those tangents, or indeed for starting a thread in DH to discuss them.
Transgressors, be warned.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I think that the astonishing immensity and variety of the observed Universe -- combined with the (thus far) observed rarity of beings/creatures like us -- makes us all that much more special rather than insignificant …
Self-organizing matter/energy ("life") contemplating itself is a really interesting deal, IMHO ...
I agree with this. There have been many proposals for life's development and the organization of the physical structures of organisms, and only our branch of the tree of life does what humans do. The rarity of creatures like us needs to be confirmed and I hope we can find out if this hypothesis of the rarity of sentience can be determined.
It is interesting the consider your screen name in light of what you posted. Teilhard de Chardin went quite far out in my view, but some kernel of his ideas have appealed to me. The idea that perhaps there is large universe (for our perception infinite) and that self-awareness would evolve somewhere, rarely, or even only once. Is this the free will of the cosmos?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Really? Because the whole denying the existence of evidence is a standard creationist tactic.
Take your misrepresentations elsewhere.
First off, credit where credit is due! If you're going to complain about misrepresentations, perhaps you shouldn't misrepresent who you're responding to.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The record shows that I have not denied any evidence in the above. I have made the objectively true statement that there is little direct evidence for the evolution of hominids. Enough for someone who thinks that hominids have evolved to draw some kind of evolutionary tree? Sure. A correct tree? Quite possibly, though it has been changing as new evidence comes in now and then. But there simply isn't a massive fossil record, and genetic approaches rely on assumptions.
For starters, the idea that no hominid* species changes over time (i.e. evolves) would make them pretty radically distinct from every other organism on the planet. And exactly what "assumptions" do you find unpalatable about genetics? For example, the remains of Richard III were recently identified using genetic testing, which would seem to rest on the same assumptions as most of the rest of genetics (parent organisms pass along genetic material to their descendents, occasional mutations occur, etc.)
--------------------
*Still not clear whether you mean "hominids" as roughly equivalent to H. sapiens or mean to include all great ape species in the term.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As I must comply with Eutychus' directive I cannot take you on here IngoB. But I can easily take you on. I'm twice as old as the geniuses I work with. Hell or Dead Horses? I tell you what, I'll totter off to Hell. It'll take a while, I'm old, slow, thick. But the pitiful dragon of claimed intellectualism still has to be slain.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
While we can't "prove" causation, we can and do experience it ...
as an interpretation of sensory information. But if your pov about meaning changes, the interpretation also changes.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Host Hat On
@ Croesos' last post
Croesos, you are discussing the evolution of hominids and also referring back to a creation/evolution distinctive. Your post and the continuation of the arguments belong in Dead Horses.
You are are ignoring Eutychus' Host ruling and my earlier post as well. So in accordance with normal practice, that gets you a reference to Admin. Others please note.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I think that the astonishing immensity and variety of the observed Universe -- combined with the (thus far) observed rarity of beings/creatures like us -- makes us all that much more special rather than insignificant …
Self-organizing matter/energy ("life") contemplating itself is a really interesting deal, IMHO ...
I agree with this. There have been many proposals for life's development and the organization of the physical structures of organisms, and only our branch of the tree of life does what humans do. The rarity of creatures like us needs to be confirmed and I hope we can find out if this hypothesis of the rarity of sentience can be determined.
It is interesting the consider your screen name in light of what you posted. Teilhard de Chardin went quite far out in my view, but some kernel of his ideas have appealed to me. The idea that perhaps there is large universe (for our perception infinite) and that self-awareness would evolve somewhere, rarely, or even only once. Is this the free will of the cosmos?
One way to understand "God" is as, "the Soul of The Universe" … Human beings understood as being created "in the image of God" adds into that picture ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
While we can't "prove" causation, we can and do experience it ...
as an interpretation of sensory information. But if your pov about meaning changes, the interpretation also changes.
Yes … "Meaning" isn't necessarily one single static thing that must be experienced/understood identically by all … The incredible heat of the sun is a different thing today (in Minnesota, thawing out from a miserable February) than in July (in Arizona) …
IOW, while "Reality" presumably is the same reality everywhere always, in fact, it isn't necessarily so … The same sun that saves my life in Minnesota in March might kill me in Arizona in August ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hell for your creationism will keep IngoB. What would you call a creature that builds dwellings with fireplaces, cooks, builds boats, buries its dead? Non-sapient?
Fallen?
At least two hundred thousand years ago?
From where?
I pause. Seriously. Is this a Dead Horse?
To what?
You say that that is irrelevant, implying that you bow to all the rational, sound, scientific evidence, you being a scientist squared and all, more scientificalisticalisticistical than anyone else here by an extra cerebral hemisphere or two, that the supernatural endowment of sapience is nonetheless credible even half a million years ago, a la 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Because the Bible tells you so.
How did they know? I mean REALLY how did they know? The post-Exilic editors of a tradition a thousand years older?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We need a model of gradual/punctuated sapience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you believe that sapience supervenes on physical brain states, perhaps.
Talk about cheap rhetoric. I don't have to BELIEVE in anything. It's IRRELEVANT. What happened? What's the story? The scientific one AND Genesis? Been there mate. There can ONLY be one.
If I take this to Hell it'll be more of the same without the kid gloves on.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Host Hat On
Well, I think I've decoded Martin60's post sufficiently to refer it to Admin as another possible ignoring of Eutychus' Host post and my underlining of it. Ruminating in Purgatory about whether you'll continue the DH theme (creationism v evolution so far as hominids are concerned) or call IngoB to Hell; both are off limits here. Call him to Hell or reopen the discussion in DH. Those are your only options.
For everyone else. This thread will be closed if there are any more posts re creationism/evolution of hominids.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
[ADMIN]
Always listen to the Hosts.
Crœsos, Martin60, please take a couple weeks to contemplate how serious we are about Commandment 6. Hopefully nobody else needs similar reminding.
[/ADMIN]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
One way to understand "God" is as, "the Soul of The Universe" … Human beings understood as being created "in the image of God" adds into that picture ...
Perhaps that is one way to understand God, but I don't think it's anything like the orthodox Christian way of understanding God (He is the Creator of all things, not a spirit animating creation, even all of creation).
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
One way to understand "God" is as, "the Soul of The Universe" … Human beings understood as being created "in the image of God" adds into that picture ...
Perhaps that is one way to understand God, but I don't think it's anything like the orthodox Christian way of understanding God (He is the Creator of all things, not a spirit animating creation, even all of creation).
(Reportedly) The LORD God "breathed into [them] the spirit-breath of life and they became living souls" … There are many ways to understand that affirmation … but they all involve "God" and the "dust" ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
There may be, but again, orthodox Christian belief is pretty specific about God being an eternal self-existent Being Who created everything else ex nihilo, and isn't a part of the material universe in Himself.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
There may be, but again, orthodox Christian belief is pretty specific about God being an eternal self-existent Being Who created everything else ex nihilo, and isn't a part of the material universe in Himself.
True … Except that the "ex nihilo" part, while "Orthodox"-"Catholic," isn't necessarily "Biblical" … The Biblical Creation stories are a bit fuzzy about that part …
But what is CLEAR is that "life" is all about God animating the dust and clay with "spirit-breath" that comes from -- and only from -- God ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Still, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God is eternal. The heavens and the earth are not; they came to be at some time. This doesn't seem to jive with a "God as world-soul" theology.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Still, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God is eternal. The heavens and the earth are not; they came to be at some time. This doesn't seem to jive with a "God as world-soul" theology.
This and ChastMastr's posts are helpful. But may I ask how do we actually know about what is meant by eternal in the context of the universe? We know that planets and solar systems form and then the suns/stars burn out, so they are finite. But the universe may go through series of big bangs and contractions, cycling through. Out conception of eternity is merely that time for us starts with the current big bang. The whole thing seems so amazingly grand, bigger than my brain can handle.
What if the universe is infinite in this sense?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In that case "beginning" would be metaphorical. But we believe the Father begot the Son, but not in time; eternally begetting, eternally being begotten. It's a relationship of causality. We equate causality with time because we are IN time. (IngoB could not doubt tell us about the four kinds of causation à la Aristotle but I'm no expert there.)
But even in our world of time and space, causation needn't imply succession in time, and can be static and ongoing. The girders of the first flooor cause the second floor to be above the ground. All the time, right now, and continuing.
We know the building to have been built at some time, and presumably the first floor was built before the second. Although it needn't have been. It would be odd to build the second story first, hold it in the air and build the first underneath it, but neither logically nor physically impossible. The point being that causation in time is not necessary for the kind of ongoing, static causation I'm referring to. (Static isn't quite the right term but I ohpe it conveys the nothing-moving-ness of what I'm referring to.)
In similar manner (you can only ever really use analogues and metaphors with God, innit) the Father begets the Son. Not at some point in the past, but all the time, ongoing.
So, if the Universe were temporally infinite, the same principle would apply. God is always causing the universe to exist, in a static, now and all the time sense.
This may be folderol but it's my attempt to square that circle.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB could not doubt tell us about the four kinds of causation à la Aristotle but I'm no expert there.
I think the Aristotelian word is only still translated 'cause' because it's a) traditional; and b) there isn't a better word available. It doesn't quite mean 'cause' as generally understood in English these days. Perhaps 'explanation' is a closer English equivalent, although explanation is ambiguous between what is going on and people talking about what is going on.
Anyway...
'Formal cause': what something is, its shape, the way it is put together.
'Material cause': what it is made out of.
'Efficient cause': what brings it about. Closest to the meaning of cause in modern English.
'Final cause': what something is there for, the purpose. (Not necessarily the same as the intention behind something, unless you're a Roman Catholic creationist.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I was going to post a reply but Mousethief summed it up pretty well. "Eternity" in this sense isn't time going on for a really really long time--it's something that transcends the whole thing. (As a side note, this gets into the whole free will/predestination thing, as I understand it, because while we freely make our decisions and (on an earthly level) perceive them as sequential points along our personal timeline, God transcends the whole thing and sees our timeline all at once in His neverending Now, along with trilobites and dinosaurs and the births and deaths of galaxies and what we see as the distant future and beyond that--and, if there is a multiverse or multi-multi-multi (etc.) verse, all of that as well.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
That's the problem re time. The people who discuss such things talk of some events in the universe currently as having a minimum flexible time where time passes more quickly or slowly some places than in others as a function of speed. We don't know if there is time within a black hole for instance.
Eternity may be a characteristic of God and of black holes.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That's the problem re time. The people who discuss such things talk of some events in the universe currently as having a minimum flexible time where time passes more quickly or slowly some places than in others as a function of speed. We don't know if there is time within a black hole for instance.
Eternity may be a characteristic of God and of black holes.
a photon has a lifespan of zero...
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is a photon a particle or a wave?
The mystery, oh the mystery!
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
We finite human beings (who imagine our selves to be THE model of intelligence, wisdom, knowledge and understanding !!!) of course naturally try to get hold of that slippery thing called, "Reality," as best we can in terms of our own experience and limitations … How could we do otherwise, or better … ???
Thus, the problem, yes … ???
Meanwhile … Dear well-meaning Steve Hawking thinks, writes and talks about "how 'God' sees the Universe," and so on, while dear well-meaning guys like Rick Dawkins just cut to their own chase and either scoff or vomit whenever "God" is mentioned …
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
