Accomodationists
Frank J
have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
think it’s atheistic. When they are reminded that there are many
“theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you’ll find
that IDers consider TEs “the worst of the worst.” IDers whining about
“accomodationists” is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
the kettle black, because:
OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
common descent.
YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
spherical Earth.
If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers’ “theory” must
be the correct one. ;-)
Frank J
Yo! What happened to my quotes? I never use the word "Darwinist(s)"
without them.
Ron O
The flat-earthers are accommodationists for conceding that there is no
all powerful god that could make the universe any way that he wanted
to. There may be various flat-earth cosmologies, but they all limit
their god is some way.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
You can find them on a flat earth.
Ron Okimoto
Kalkidas
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3ecbfe39-23b0-49c6...@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> When IDers set out to fool a new audience
k00k-a-d00dle-d00...!
[snip PMS inspired conspiracy theory rantings]
monke...@gmail.com
> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Its no conspiracy theory dude. Go over to http://www.uncommondescent.com/
and pretend to be a theistic evolutionist. They will have a special
kind of hate saved for you.
Will in New Haven
You are a complete and utter ass. You _deserve_ to have a planet with
one superpower, the U.S. run by fanatical Christians, who would fry
your ugly butt. They _pretend_ to have respect for your rantings but
you are, in their view, a pagan and an enemy. Unlike secularists and
most other Christians, they would eventually kill you.
--
Will in New Haven
Ron O
It just depends on the political situation. History would tell us
that if they wanted to drum up a bunch of quick political support the
religious fanatics would start attacking other religions and guys like
Kalkidas would be on the short list for elimination. If they are
fairly secure and don't need the quick political boost then they will
likely start by eliminating those with views closest to their own, but
not considered to be among the worthy and work their way outwards and
get to folks like Kalkidas fairly late in the game. So guys like
Kalkidas would prefer a stong political base for the religious
fanatics that can't stand the moderate Christian groups, so that he
would be less of a target, temporarily. Really, his biggest problem
would be if the fundies needed the moderates to gain enough political
power to do what they want to do. Mob appeal is one way to get it and
there isn't much better way to get mob support than to start some new
crusade. His level of incompetence is such that he doesn't realize
that, that is the current situation. The guys that want to take us
back to the dark ages actually need the support of the moderates to
help them get there. That is why they spend so much time trying to
act like they are reasonable people.
Ron Okimoto
T Pagano
wrote:
>When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
>have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
>Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
>admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
>think it’s atheistic.
Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
> When they are reminded that there are many
>“theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
an accurate assessment?
Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
truth with precedence over Scripture. The TEer doesn't show that the
human conjecture is true or that Scripture/theology is false.
TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
This isn't accommodation but subversion.
>
>IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you’ll find
>that IDers consider TEs “the worst of the worst.” IDers whining about
>“accomodationists” is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
>the kettle black, because:
No where here does Frank J show that the charge against TEers is
false. Does he show below that the charge is hypocritical?
>
>OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
>common descent.
Wrong again. OECs, YECs and IDers all presume common descent.
However, all doubt common descent from some First Common Ancestor.
>YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
Wrong again. I don't know of any Christian denomination which
requires their members to accept---as dogma----that the earth is
young.
>Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
>Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
Wrong again. As far as I know all YECs are also geoCentricists.
>>Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
>spherical Earth.
Wrong again. Flat Earthers consider "all" who hold that the earth to
be spherical to be mistaken not just geoCentricists. This would
include atheists and Christians alike.
In any event. . .even if any of these were examples similar to the
behavior of theistic evolutionists (which they are not) how would they
be evidence of the hypocrisy of IDers?
>>If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers’ “theory” must
>be the correct one. ;-)
This suffers from the fallacy of irrelevent conclusion (ignoratio
elenchi)
Frank J sets out to prove that IDers are hypocrits in their charge
against TEers and fails to do so.
Frank J fails to present any analogous examples to the behavior of
TEers.
Frank J shows his usual bafoonery.
Regards,
T Pagano
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Wrong again. As far as I know all YECs are also geoCentricists.
Do you know of any that actually say this? You're the only person I can
remember actually saying it on talk.origins, for example.
For example I tried to find any indication of the ICR's position on it,
and I've failed. The only mentions for "geocentrism", "geocentrist"
seem to be historical ones.
They (or at least John Morris) have an unconventional view:
<http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3510/343/> claims that the sun is near
the centre of the universe. He also claims that the Earth is at the
centre of God's attention. That seems uncontroversial (for a Christian)
to me. No mention of geocentrism, and surely he'd have mentioned it on
that page?
Ah, <http://www.icr.org/earth-unique/> seems even clearer. ICR says the
earth moves.
[...]
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
>>have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
>
>>Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
>>admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
>>think it’s atheistic.
>
>Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
>supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
>
theistic evolutionists invalidates your assertion. The theory of
evolution is agnostic on the possibility of supernatural action.
>
>> When they are reminded that there are many
>>“theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
>
>I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
>an accurate assessment?
Reality is not constrained by the bounds of your knowledge. I'm not sure
that the particular word is used (accomodationist is more popular with
proseltysing atheist), but the spirit of label is use
>
>Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
>it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
>Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
>truth with precedence over Scripture. The TEer doesn't show that the
>human conjecture is true or that Scripture/theology is false.
Actually the TEer holds that the work of God (the world) takes
precedence over the words of men (the Bible, and in particular
interpretations of the Bible). I have difficulty understanding how a
true Christian could take any other position. It's you, not the TEer,
who insists that the Bible is false.
>
>TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
>Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
>effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
>And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
>
>This isn't accommodation but subversion.
Is it not also the mainstream Catholic position? It as Augustine who
pointed out (freely paraphrased) that if your understanding of the Bible
contradicts observation it is likely that it's your understanding of the
Bible is wrong.
>
>>
>>IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you’ll find
>>that IDers consider TEs “the worst of the worst.” IDers whining about
>>“accomodationists” is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
>>the kettle black, because:
>
>No where here does Frank J show that the charge against TEers is
>false. Does he show below that the charge is hypocritical?
>
Do you not consider OECs' (e.g. Hugh Ross) acceptance of the Big Bang
to be a compromise with the secular world? Do you not consider YECs'
(e.g. Answers in Genesis) acceptance of a heliocentric solar system to a
compromise with the secular world? If so, then you are in agreement with
Frank J. - IDers would be accusing one set of others of what another set
of others think IDers are doing - compromising Biblical interpretation
to confirm with scientific knowledge.
>>
>>OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
>>common descent.
>
>Wrong again. OECs, YECs and IDers all presume common descent.
>However, all doubt common descent from some First Common Ancestor.
Language pragmatics are not constrained by the bounds of your knowledge.
It was obvious to the rest of use that what was being described was a
transitive relation. You shouldn't be so eager to accuse others of being
wrong.
>
>>YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>
>Wrong again. I don't know of any Christian denomination which
>requires their members to accept---as dogma----that the earth is
>young.
Reality is not constrained by the bounds of your knowledge. You
shouldn't be so eager to accuse others of being wrong.
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Church_bodi
es_whose_official_position_is_YEC>
>
>>Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
>>Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
>
>Wrong again. As far as I know all YECs are also geoCentricists.
Reality is not constrained by the bounds of your knowledge. You
shouldn't be so eager to accuse others of being wrong.
<URL:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/affirmations-denials-ch
ristian-worldview>
<URL:http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp>
>
>>>Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
>>spherical Earth.
>
>Wrong again. Flat Earthers consider "all" who hold that the earth to
>be spherical to be mistaken not just geoCentricists. This would
>include atheists and Christians alike.
Language pragmatics are not constrained by the bounds of your knowledge.
It was obvious to the rest of use that what was being described was a
transitive relation. You shouldn't be so eager to accuse others of being
wrong.
>
>In any event. . .even if any of these were examples similar to the
>behavior of theistic evolutionists (which they are not) how would they
>be evidence of the hypocrisy of IDers?
>
>
>>>If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers’ “theory” must
>>be the correct one. ;-)
>
>This suffers from the fallacy of irrelevent conclusion (ignoratio
>elenchi)
>
>Frank J sets out to prove that IDers are hypocrits in their charge
>against TEers and fails to do so.
But Tony Pagano kindly presented the proof for him.
>
>Frank J fails to present any analogous examples to the behavior of
>TEers.
>
>Frank J shows his usual bafoonery.
Tony puts another bullet where his feet used to be.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Frank J
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
> >have a new science and that Darwinists are closed-minded to it.
> >Sometimes they don t even wait for Darwinists to correct them, and
> >admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
> >think it s atheistic.
>
> Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
> supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
Tony, you're slipping. You forgot to put my name in the new subject
line.
>
> > When they are reminded that there are many
> > theistic evolutionists IDers dismiss them as accomodationists.
>
> I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
> an accurate assessment?
You'd know that if you read and remembered anything other than what
you want to remember.
>
> Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
> it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
> Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
> truth with precedence over Scripture. The TEer doesn't show that the
> human conjecture is true or that Scripture/theology is false.
They don't need to show that Scripture/theology is false.
*Creationists* do that for them by being unable to come to a consensus
regarding "what happened when" and increasingly resorting to "don't
ask, don't tell."
Have you challenged any other *creationist* with your geocentric
"theory"? Have you challenged Ray on the "microevolution" that he
denies?
>
> TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
> Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
> effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
> And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
>
> This isn't accommodation but subversion.
Subversion of what? Oh wait, I know. It's a subversion of creationists
attempt to violate God's Commandmant that forbids bearing false
witness.
But you know that.
>
>
>
> >IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you ll find
> >that IDers consider TEs the worst of the worst. IDers whining about
> > accomodationists is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
> >the kettle black, because:
>
> No where here does Frank J show that the charge against TEers is
> false. Does he show below that the charge is hypocritical?
I don't, beacuse, as I said (if you read the whole post), only Flat-
Earthers are *not* accommodationists of some sort.
>
>
>
> >OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
> >common descent.
>
> Wrong again. OECs, YECs and IDers all presume common descent.
> However, all doubt common descent from some First Common Ancestor.
Nice try at a bait-and-switch. Even many "Darwinists" do not think
that there was a *universal free living* ancestral species. But all
YECs and OECs deny common ancestry between humans and other primates,
even if many IDers do not.
>
> >YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>
> Wrong again. I don't know of any Christian denomination which
> requires their members to accept---as dogma----that the earth is
> young.
And I never said that they did. I don't know what *Christian
denominations* require, only what *certain anti-evolution
organizations* do. Nice try again at a bait-and-switch.
>
> >Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
> >Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
>
> Wrong again. As far as I know all YECs are also geoCentricists.
So you won't mind citing where AiG and ICR state that unequivocally. I
will gladly stand corrected if you do.
>
> >>Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
> >spherical Earth.
>
> Wrong again. Flat Earthers consider "all" who hold that the earth to
> be spherical to be mistaken not just geoCentricists. This would
> include atheists and Christians alike.
Show me where I said that they didn't.
>
> In any event. . .even if any of these were examples similar to the
> behavior of theistic evolutionists (which they are not) how would they
> be evidence of the hypocrisy of IDers?
>
> >>If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers theory must
> >be the correct one. ;-)
>
> This suffers from the fallacy of irrelevent conclusion (ignoratio
> elenchi)
It would be if it was not meant as a joke.
>
> Frank J sets out to prove that IDers are hypocrits in their charge
> against TEers and fails to do so.
>
> Frank J fails to present any analogous examples to the behavior of
> TEers.
>
> Frank J shows his usual bafoonery.
Jeez Tony. I'm starting to have doubts about my disagreement with the
poster who thought you were a Loki.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Ron O
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
Hey Kalkidas, isn't sad how wrong you can be?
Ron Okimoto
macaddicted
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that
> > they
>> have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
>
>> Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
>> admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
>> think it’s atheistic.
>
> Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
> supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
>
>
>> When they are reminded that there are many
>> “theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
>
> I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
> an accurate assessment?
>
> Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
> it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
"Incomplete" is probably more accurate.
> Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
> truth with precedence over Scripture.
So "truth cannot contradict truth," which IIRC goes back to Trent, is
wrong? Oh, and the RCC does hold scripture above discovered truth.
Kalkidas
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3ecbfe39-23b0-49c6...@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
k00k of the month nomination for this post. Any seconds?
Greg G.
...
> k00k of the month nomination for this post. Any seconds?
Seconded.
John S. Wilkins
No, but you definitely qualify.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
chris thompson
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
I thought he was nominating himself.
Chris
Greg G.
Dakota
Those who profit from war are perfectly willing to donate to religious
causes and candidate who exploit the believers. The profiteers know that
it is easy to convince fundamentalists that war is God's way of
punishing the evil doers. It happens in all nations with majority
fundamentalist populations but, unfortunately, in my country, the USA,
we have the technology to kill vast numbers of people and enough
fundamentalists to ensure that we do so.
James Beck
Not quite true. Most of the Christians in the current Republican
coalition have an uncomfortable relationship with both the military
and the big business Republicans. Some of the big business Republicans
are defense contractors, so there's some overlap, but on the whole the
big business Republicans aren't big fans of war, though they do
tolerate it when their interests are threatened.
Ernest Major
writes
ever won?)
--
alias Ernest Major
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Vietnam-era stereotypes (Archie Bunker vs. Mike Stivic) are
definitely changing, if reality ever was that close to the stereotype.
Look how the "conservative" anti-evolution activists have become the
most incessant "bed-wetters," demanding that taxpayers pay for
students to learn pseudoscience that they can already learn on their
own time, and their parents' dime.
Ron O
> In message <i068kf$1t...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Probably just a wannabe.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
You just can't make this junk up. Pags chimes in to demonstrate how
wrong Kalkidas was and Kalkidas can't give it up and repeats the same
bogus notions. These guys are past kookdom.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
"Bruce Stephens" <bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87y6e18...@cenderis.internal:
> T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Wrong again. As far as I know all YECs are also geoCentricists.
>
> Do you know of any that actually say this? You're the only person I can
> remember actually saying it on talk.origins, for example.
>
> For example I tried to find any indication of the ICR's position on it,
> and I've failed. The only mentions for "geocentrism", "geocentrist"
> seem to be historical ones.
Answers in Genesis (a YEC group) has not only refused to accept
geocentrism, but they have deconstructed it. Actually, they did a
pretty good job showing that it's both scientifically false and
theologically unnecessary.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp
-- Steven L.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Then why are they unwilling to do the same thing to creationism?
Dave Oldridge
8bcc26l9ieqkid0tn...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
>>have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
>
>>Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
>>admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
>>think it’s atheistic.
>
> Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
> supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
Creationists insist that lying in God's name is the only path to
salvation. THAT is atheistic, since it requires dishonesty from all
believers, thereby DELIBErATELY excluding honest people from the kingdom
of the creationist "god!"
>
>
>> When they are reminded that there are many
>>“theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
>
> I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
> an accurate assessment?
I have. The IDers principle proponents have written some fairly vicious
attacks on theisitic eolutionists (as they call any believer who accepts
the science on the evidence).
>
> Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
> it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
Ahh, ghere is the crux, so to speakm, of the matter. This bibliolatrous
doctrine has never been part of any Christian creed, especially when
scripture is interpreted in the most literal fashion.
> Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
> truth with precedence over Scripture. The TEer doesn't show that the
> human conjecture is true or that Scripture/theology is false.
>
> TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
> Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
> effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
> And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
Wrong. CHRISTIANS, as opposed to creationist heretics, base our doctrines
and teachings on the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurredtion of Jesus
Christ, not some latter-day superstitions about biblical texts preserved
in our tradition.
God did what He did whatever wey He did it. If the physical evidence
suggests that He did it differently from the way that ypur incompetent
understanding of tradition says He should, then that is YOUR problem. You
are, of course, fully entitled to preach your heresy from the pulpits of
your wo-called churches and even to hire private instructors to lie to
your own chgildren about science. You, the Discovery Institute, the ICR
and the whole GODDAMN (literally) lot of you have NO right to impose your
devil-spawn heresies on the children of real Christians in our public
schools. No legal right and no moral right. And if you try to usurp the
legal right by force, we (Christians) have a MORAL right to pray your
charred little souls back into hell along with the demons who are your
real "gods!"
>
> This isn't accommodation but subversion.
Damn (literally again) right! Creationism is a subversive anti-democratic
conspiracy against the US constitution and against the real Church.
>
>>
>>IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you’ll find
>>that IDers consider TEs “the worst of the worst.” IDers whining about
>>“accomodationists” is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
>>the kettle black, because:
>
> No where here does Frank J show that the charge against TEers is
> false. Does he show below that the charge is hypocritical?
The reason it's false is because it ASSUES that TE is based on the same
superstitious (heretical) ideas about scripture, its interpretation and
place in Christian worship that you heretics are trying to impose on the
rest of us by force in the first place.
>
>>
>>OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
>>common descent.
>
> Wrong again. OECs, YECs and IDers all presume common descent.
No, they do not. They presume separate creation of "kinds."
And "kind" turns out to be a flexible taxon denoting any groupings for
which the creationist using it wishes to deny common descent!
> However, all doubt common descent from some First Common Ancestor.
Your doubt and a couple of bucks will get you a coffee and donut.
>
>>YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>
> Wrong again. I don't know of any Christian denomination which
> requires their members to accept---as dogma----that the earth is
> young.
Neither do I, but I know of churches where it is taught that such a dogma
is necessary to salvation and where anyone who expresses the idea that the
physicakl evidence implies an old earth is shunned or excommunicated.
>
>>Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
>>Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
>
> Wrong again. As far as I know all YECs are also geoCentricists.
They are? So Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were not YEC's. I
have read claims that they were.
>
>>>Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
>>spherical Earth.
>
> Wrong again. Flat Earthers consider "all" who hold that the earth to
> be spherical to be mistaken not just geoCentricists. This would
> include atheists and Christians alike.
You are mincing words. Creationists consider atheists and Christians who
accept the science of evolution to be in error about special creation.
>
> In any event. . .even if any of these were examples similar to the
> behavior of theistic evolutionists (which they are not) how would they
> be evidence of the hypocrisy of IDers?
IDers, like the YEC movement that spawned them are engaged in a conspiracy
to sneak religious dogma (special creation) into school science classes
past the US constitution's ban on established religions. All their
actions show this to be their primary agenda. In other words, the
conspiracy is rooted in hypocrisy from the get-go. And how the root
twists, so twists the tree. Rotten root, rotten fruit. I didn't say
that--I cribbed it from a 1st century itinerant preacher named Jesus.
>
>
>>>If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers’ “theory” must
>>be the correct one. ;-)
>
> This suffers from the fallacy of irrelevent conclusion (ignoratio
> elenchi)
No, I think the anaogy is apt.
>
> Frank J sets out to prove that IDers are hypocrits in their charge
> against TEers and fails to do so.
They, like all creationist activists are hypocrites in their attempt to
appear as conservatives, both theologically and politially. They are, in
fact, subversive radical heretics bent on imposing their heresy on society
by force. Hence all the political action to insinuate their false ideas
into the schools.
>
> Frank J fails to present any analogous examples to the behavior of
> TEers.
>
> Frank J shows his usual bafoonery.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
And YOU show your usual bigotry, hypocrisy and outright rebellion against
the deity you CLAIM you believe in--along with your acceptance of those
cults who excommunicate HONEST Christians.
Good luck explaining that to my Boss. He can see right through your
deceptions, you know! Heck, even the demons from hell who sport with the
creationist bigots can see through them! So can a lot of ordinary people.
And those who cannot articulate why your lies are lies can at least sense
it subconscously. That makes them hostile.
My advice: Wake up and smell the brimstone!
--
Dave Oldridge+
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
>>have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
>
>>Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
>>admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
>>think it’s atheistic.
>
>Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
>supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
well no.
supernaturalism doesn't work. the supernaturalists had a 2000 y ear
head start on science.
they failed to have a SINGLE success. not one. not a single one in
2000 years.
so how can science, which does work, be atheistic for excluding what
is a failure?
>
>Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
>it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
the guarantee you speak of?
it's a conjecture.
>Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
>truth with precedence over Scripture. The TEer doesn't show that the
>human conjecture is true or that Scripture/theology is false.
>
there is no such thing as theology. there are theologIES...plural. but
there are 38,000 christian denominations
which has the correct theology, tony?
>TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
>Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
>effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
>And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
and creationists invent scripture by saying it's literally true
but that's found nowhere in scripture. it's ironic. creationism
asserts its beliefs are biblical
yet its founding and central idea...scriptural literalism....is not
scriptural
>>
John Stockwell
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
> >have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
> >Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
> >admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
> >think it’s atheistic.
>
> Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
> supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
Only because supernaturalism failed to gel as a useful notion.
>
> > When they are reminded that there are many
> >“theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
>
> I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
> an accurate assessment?
>
> Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
> it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
> Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
> truth with precedence over Scripture. The TEer doesn't show that the
> human conjecture is true or that Scripture/theology is false.
Obviously literalists readings of the Bible fail to be a useful
substitute
for science. So, of course, religious people who are scientifically
knowledgeable and honest recognize that there are large parts of
the Bible that must be at the least allegorical, or at the most
mythological and represented of obsolete thinking.
>
> TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
> Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
> effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
> And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
>
> This isn't accommodation but subversion.
Actually, it is the victory of rationality over irrational thinking.
Take yourself, as an example. Your thoughts have deteriorated
to the degree that you reject the most basic scientific results
of the past 400 years, concocting a fabricated worldview that lets
you pretend that your personal plain reading of the Bible is
compatible with modern science. You ignore a lot of what doesn´´t
agree, and barefacedly lie about the rest.
>
>
>
> >IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you’ll find
> >that IDers consider TEs “the worst of the worst.” IDers whining about
> >“accomodationists” is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
> >the kettle black, because:
>
> No where here does Frank J show that the charge against TEers is
> false. Does he show below that the charge is hypocritical?
>
>
>
> >OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
> >common descent.
>
> Wrong again. OECs, YECs and IDers all presume common descent.
> However, all doubt common descent from some First Common Ancestor.
>
> >YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>
> Wrong again. I don't know of any Christian denomination which
> requires their members to accept---as dogma----that the earth is
> young.
Unless you are a Christian who is knowledgeable about basic
science, in which case, you recognize that science has advanced
considerably over the science that was known 2200 years ago.
>
> >Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
> >Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
>
> Wrong again. As far as I know all YECs are also geoCentricists.
Well, all know that you donºt know a hell of a lot. Even nutjob
Martinez recognizes you as being nuttier him over this point.
>
> >>Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
> >spherical Earth.
So, to Tony, there is a higher level of Xtian nutjobbery than his
own.
>
> >>If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers’ “theory” must
> >be the correct one. ;-)
>
> This suffers from the fallacy of irrelevent conclusion (ignoratio
> elenchi)
>
> Frank J sets out to prove that IDers are hypocrits in their charge
> against TEers and fails to do so.
>
> Frank J fails to present any analogous examples to the behavior of
> TEers.
>
> Frank J shows his usual bafoonery.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-John
Richard Clayton
Kalkidas seems to thinking wishing REALLY HARD makes something true.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Frank J
wrote:
Or false, as in his caricature of evolution. If anyone has a clue as
to what he thinks is a better explanation other than "some designer
did some unspecified thing at some unspecified time" please let me
know.
> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> Richard Clayton
> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling- Hide quoted text -
T Pagano
wrote:
The atheistic regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung murdered a combined
60 million of their own people (Stalin 20 million and Mao 40 million)
and in the space of a few short years. This makes every other
religious regime throughout all of recorded history look like candy
asses.
Atheism has no bounds or limits on its behavior. Atheism's behavior
is purely darwinian. It acts to take over a niche and kill everything
in its way. That Okimoto overlooks these purely atheistic regimes of
murder and singles out religious ones is yet another reason to
believe that his so-called Methodism is nothing but sheep's clothing.
Regards,
T Pagano
bpuharic
wrote:
>The atheistic regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung murdered a combined
>60 million of their own people (Stalin 20 million and Mao 40 million)
>and in the space of a few short years. This makes every other
>religious regime throughout all of recorded history look like candy
>asse
the communist regimes did so. communism is a form of religion. it has
the same goal as religion. there is little difference between a
reliogion which has people thinking they know the mind of god, and
people who think they are god.
>
>Atheism has no bounds or limits on its behavior.
so tell us what limits bin laden has. he believes in god. and he would
gladly kill the entire human race to bring it to islam
Atheism's behavior
>is purely darwinian. It acts to take over a niche and kill everything
>in its way. That Okimoto overlooks these purely atheistic regimes of
>murder and singles out religious ones is yet another reason to
>believe that his so-called Methodism is nothing but sheep's clothing.
>
there were no atheists who flew the planes into the WTC>
they all believed in god.
Ron O
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
What an IDiot Pags. How could anyone be so stupid. Some of the
examples that I had in mind when I wrote the paragraph that you
stumbled over was the French revolution and the Nazis. You are just a
total loser. What did Stalin do to consolidate power?
Ron Okimoto
Greg G.
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
How many of those deaths were from starvation? How much of the
starvation was due to the rejection of evolution by those regimes?
Desertphile
wrote:
>
> "Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3ecbfe39-23b0-49c6...@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > When IDers set out to fool a new audience
> k00k-a-d00dle-d00...!
What?
You cult assholes hate everyone who does not accept your insane
bullshit, but you occult-befuddled nutcases hate each other even
more when a subset of your death cult has a tiny deviation in
their belief.
> [snip PMS inspired conspiracy theory rantings]
Content restored:
> When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
> have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
> Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
> admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
> think it’s atheistic. When they are reminded that there are many
> “theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
>
> IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you’ll find
> that IDers consider TEs “the worst of the worst.” IDers whining about
> “accomodationists” is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
> the kettle black, because:
>
> OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
> common descent.
>
> YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>
> Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
> Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
>
> Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
> spherical Earth.
>
> If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers’ “theory” must
> be the correct one. ;-)
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<not....@address.net> wrote:
... a country of Christians, who cheerfully did the killing for
Stalin....
> and Mao Tse Tung
... a country of Buddhist, who cheerfully did the killing for Mao
Zedong....
> murdered a combined
> 60 million of their own people (Stalin 20 million and Mao 40 million)
> and in the space of a few short years. This makes every other
> religious regime throughout all of recorded history look like candy
> asses.
But it was Christians (Stalinist Russia) and Buddhist (Zedongist
China) who killed all of those people---- not atheists.
Pol Pot, in Cambodia, used Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims to
murder millions of Theravada Buddhism. Theists did the killing,
not atheists.
The same is true for Christian Germany (Holocaust) and Christian
United States (Indian Wars, VietNam, Korea, East Timor, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, etc.). The Christians did the killing, not atheists.
But you know these facts already.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
> have a new science and that Darwinists are closed-minded to it.
> Sometimes they don t even wait for Darwinists to correct them, and
> admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
> think it s atheistic. When they are reminded that there are many
> theistic evolutionists IDers dismiss them as accomodationists.
>
> IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you ll find
> that IDers consider TEs the worst of the worst. IDers whining about
> accomodationists is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
> the kettle black, because:
>
> OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
> common descent.
>
> YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>
> Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
> Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
>
> Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
> spherical Earth.
>
> If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers theory must
> be the correct one. ;-)
I think the last time I demanded that somebody point to some Flat-
Earthers in the present day, they actually managed it - I'm sorry,
I've forgotten the details - but certainly there aren't many.
Steven L.
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3a87f4bd-6e9a-480d...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 26, 2:06 pm, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 11:30 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >
> > > "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:3ecbfe39-23b0-49c6...@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > When IDers set out to fool a new audience
> >
> > > k00k-a-d00dle-d00...!
> >
> > > [snip PMS inspired conspiracy theory rantings]
> >
> > You are a complete and utter ass. You _deserve_ to have a planet with
> > one superpower, the U.S. run by fanatical Christians, who would fry
> > your ugly butt. They _pretend_ to have respect for your rantings but
> > you are, in their view, a pagan and an enemy. Unlike secularists and
> > most other Christians, they would eventually kill you.
> >
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> It just depends on the political situation. History would tell us
> that if they wanted to drum up a bunch of quick political support the
> religious fanatics would start attacking other religions and guys like
> Kalkidas would be on the short list for elimination. If they are
> fairly secure and don't need the quick political boost then they will
> likely start by eliminating those with views closest to their own, but
> not considered to be among the worthy and work their way outwards and
> get to folks like Kalkidas fairly late in the game. So guys like
> Kalkidas would prefer a stong political base for the religious
> fanatics that can't stand the moderate Christian groups, so that he
> would be less of a target, temporarily.
Total fantasy.
We *real* conservatives control the Religious Right utterly and
completely.
The Religious Right may dominate some local school boards here and
there.
But they have no actual power--because few of them are CEOs of any major
corporations in the U.S., few of them have made it to the "Permanent
Government"--the collection of permanent agencies in Washington DC like
the CIA and Homeland Security and the Pentagon.
But it is remarkable how you have turned the Religious Right into some
kind of boogeyman that could destroy the world or something.
They don't run the world.
In fact, they don't run anything.
What about George W. Bush, a born-again Christian? As President, he
wasn't the one who decided to invade Iraq. Wolfowitz and Cheney sold
him on that idea.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-l5hf265j5vhp2...@4ax.com:
"Atheism has no philosophical constraints on behavior"
That is the first thing you've ever said that I agree with!
Atheism has no philosophical base that acts as a *constraint* on
inherent human savagery, the violence and sadism we inherited from our
ape ancestors. (Genetically, we're more related to the violent and
savage chimps than we are to the more peaceful bonobos.)
Individual atheists may look to Hammurabi or Spinoza or Confucius or
Buddha or whoever. But as a *doctrine*, atheism has only one
precept--the non-existence of the supernatural--but never moves beyond
that to a philosophical base on which a real society could be based.
Throughout histories, real societies have been run on the basis of
religion.
Which societies have been run on the basis of atheism?
Stalin and Mao murdered millions, NOT on the basis of atheism, but on
the basis of communism.
Communism isn't necessarily antithetical to atheism; so-called
"liberation theology" (as espoused by Obama's mentor, Reverend Wright)
attempts to interpret Jesus' life and work on the basis of Marxism. It
just so happened that Stalin and Mao decided to crush churches rather
than make deals with them.
Adolf Hitler, a student of history, wrote in Mein Kampf that never in
history has a national political regime been able to carry out a
successful religious reformation. He was right. The Church is still in
Russia but the U.S.S.R. is gone.
-- Steven L.
Walter Bushell
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well, yes, but what if we get a fundamentalist born-again Christian who
is not a total dufus. Or is that oxymoronic? Or better yet, someone who
was who Bush was pretending to be?
--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
T Pagano
<macaddicte...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
snip
>>
>> Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
>> it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
>
>"Incomplete" is probably more accurate.
Since all of our theories are, and will always be, hopelessly
"incomplete" this is a distinction without a difference.
>
>> Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
>> truth with precedence over Scripture.
>
>So "truth cannot contradict truth," which IIRC goes back to Trent, is
>wrong? Oh, and the RCC does hold scripture above discovered truth.
Unfortunately most human conjectures are false and this is the crux of
the matter against theistic evolutionists. They hold up human
conjectures whose truthlikeness is unknown and place it above
Theological statements----the truth of which is guarranteed by an
Omniscient God with access to the truth.
On the rare occasion that we actually arrive at a true statement about
the world there can be no conflict with true theological statements.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
aganunitsi
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:29:13 -0500, macaddicted
>
> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
> >> it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
>
> >"Incomplete" is probably more accurate.
>
> Since all of our theories are, and will always be, hopelessly
> "incomplete" this is a distinction without a difference.
>
>
>
> >> Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
> >> truth with precedence over Scripture.
>
> >So "truth cannot contradict truth," which IIRC goes back to Trent, is
> >wrong? Oh, and the RCC does hold scripture above discovered truth.
>
> Unfortunately most human conjectures are false and this is the crux of
> the matter against theistic evolutionists. They hold up human
> conjectures whose truthlikeness is unknown and place it above
> Theological statements----the truth of which is guarranteed by an
> Omniscient God with access to the truth.
>
> On the rare occasion that we actually arrive at a true statement about
> the world there can be no conflict with true theological statements.
>
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
All theological statements are guaranteed as true?! Even the ones
already shown to be false, and the ones that contradict other
theological statements?
Noooo, I know what you're getting at. Some theological statements are
true, some are false, and only the Omniscient God knows which is
which. Guaranteed. It's guarantees all the way down!
Stanley Friesen
>
>The atheistic regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung murdered a combined
>60 million of their own people (Stalin 20 million and Mao 40 million)
>and in the space of a few short years. This makes every other
>religious regime throughout all of recorded history look like candy
>asses.
As already mentioned, Communism, as practiced in Russia and China, *is*
a religion, and the Stalinists and Maoists were the fanatics of that
religion. The Stalinists, especially, tolerated no deviation from strict
orthodoxy (aka "the Party Line").
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
>>have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
>
>>Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
>>admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
>>think it’s atheistic.
>
>Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
>supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
It is more accurate to say that the scientific method cannot be applied
to the supernatural, so it is not considered when doing scientific work.
This is better described as *agnostic* - science has no say one way or
the other on the matter.
>
>
>> When they are reminded that there are many
>>“theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
>
>I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
>an accurate assessment?
>
>Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
>it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
Hmm:
1. He assures us of the truth of the scriptures regarding our
relationship to god and each other. ("All scripture is inspired by God
and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in
righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16 - no mention of any guarantee outside of
these matters).
2. Science is not mere conjecture, and is *not* well known to be "almost
always mistaken".
>Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
>truth with precedence over Scripture. The TEer doesn't show that the
>human conjecture is true or that Scripture/theology is false.
This assume that *you* understand the scriptures better than we do.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the scriptures may not
be saying what you think they do, and that there is no actual conflict
between science and faith.
T Pagano
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
>8bcc26l9ieqkid0tn...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
>>>have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
>>
>>>Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
>>>admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
>>>think it’s atheistic.
>>
>> Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
>> supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
>
>Creationists insist that lying in God's name is the only path to
>salvation. THAT is atheistic, since it requires dishonesty from all
>believers, thereby DELIBErATELY excluding honest people from the kingdom
>of the creationist "god!"
Acusing creationists of lying is the last refuge of the intellectually
bankrupt. Atheism doen't imply lying anymore than creationism does.
Atheists do however explicitly exclude all supernatural possibilities
for metaphysical reasons and not scientific ones.
>>> When they are reminded that there are many
>>>“theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
>>
>> I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
>> an accurate assessment?
>
>I have. The IDers principle proponents have written some fairly vicious
>attacks on theisitic eolutionists (as they call any believer who accepts
>the science on the evidence).
Accusing someone of being "accommodating" is hardly vicious. And
neither is my more accurate accusation of "subverting." The problem
with theistic evolutionists is not their belief in atheistic theories,
per se. It is that they hold themselves up as Christians yet place
primacy of truth in human conjectures rather than in theological
truths guarranteed as true by an Omniscient Being.
snip
>> TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
>> Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
>> effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
>> And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
>
>Wrong. CHRISTIANS, as opposed to creationist heretics, base our doctrines
>and teachings on the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurredtion of Jesus
>Christ, not some latter-day superstitions about biblical texts preserved
>in our tradition.
The atheistic scientific community (that Oldridge defends as a
theistic evolutionist) sees the Virgin birth and the Resurrection as
nothing but silly superstitious nonsense. It places it in the same
category as Genesis 1-3. If Oldridge is a genuine Christian how
exactly does he know that the Virgin birth and Resurection is true and
Genesis 1-3 is not historical?
Oldridge tells us in his own words:
[BEGIN OLDRIDGE QUOTE]
>God did what He did whatever wey He did it. If the physical evidence
>suggests that He did it differently from the way that ypur incompetent
>understanding of tradition says He should, then that is YOUR problem.
[END QUOTE]
He proves my position. Oldridge essentially says that he places
primacy of faith in human conjectures and NOT Scripture.
> You
>are, of course, fully entitled to preach your heresy from the pulpits of
>your wo-called churches and even to hire private instructors to lie to
>your own chgildren about science. You, the Discovery Institute, the ICR
>and the whole GODDAMN (literally) lot of you have NO right to impose your
>devil-spawn heresies on the children of real Christians in our public
>schools. No legal right and no moral right. And if you try to usurp the
>legal right by force, we (Christians) have a MORAL right to pray your
>charred little souls back into hell along with the demons who are your
>real "gods!"
This is irrational, ad hominen, nonsense. Oldridge is only too quick
to give away the Scriptural store to human conjectures based solely
upon corroborative evidence. But astrology can amass mountains of
such evidence and most agree that it is both false and unscientific.
All false scientific theories can amass corroborative evidence since
all false theories (of any content) have true consequences. On this
shakey ground does Oldridge really intend to forsake the primacy of
Scripture for human conjectures? Apparently so.
Today Oldridge gives away Genesis 1-3 as a silly superstitious story.
Tomorrow what else will he give up? The Resurrection?
>>
>> This isn't accommodation but subversion.
>
>Damn (literally again) right! Creationism is a subversive anti-democratic
>conspiracy against the US constitution and against the real Church.
I know I've struck a raw nerve when I get this kind of emotional
response. Oldridge knows I'm right. He knows as a Christian that
theological truths take precedence over human conjectures but as a
TEer he follows his atheist masters.
>>>IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you’ll find
>>>that IDers consider TEs “the worst of the worst.” IDers whining about
>>>“accomodationists” is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
>>>the kettle black, because:
>>
>> No where here does Frank J show that the charge against TEers is
>> false. Does he show below that the charge is hypocritical?
>
>The reason it's false is because it ASSUES that TE is based on the same
>superstitious (heretical) ideas about scripture, its interpretation and
>place in Christian worship that you heretics are trying to impose on the
>rest of us by force in the first place.
But one wonders how Oldridge rationalizes belief in the Resurrection
but eschews the historical value of Genesis 1-3. How does he know
that one is historical and one is not. Most atheists don't doubt
that a man named Jesus existed but consider Oldridge's belief in the
Resurrection to be silly superstitious nonsense and they'd have plenty
of science to show that resurrection is impossible.
>>
>>>
>>>OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
>>>common descent.
>>
>> Wrong again. OECs, YECs and IDers all presume common descent.
>
>No, they do not. They presume separate creation of "kinds."
Indeed they do but they don't believe that every population that has
ever existed was specially created. That would be pretty obviously
false. They believe that a finite number of protype kinds were
specially created by God and that every other population arose by
common descent.
>And "kind" turns out to be a flexible taxon denoting any groupings for
>which the creationist using it wishes to deny common descent!
Unfortunately "species" and every other taxon suffers from the same
fuzzy subjectivity.
>> However, all doubt common descent from some First Common Ancestor.
>Your doubt and a couple of bucks will get you a coffee and donut.
>>
I don't doubt God's truths because he has authority over the truth.
Since the history of science has shown that most human conjectures are
false my skepticism is justified. Oldridge demonstrates here that he
doesn't worship the one true God but atheistic human knowledge. This
is the mark of the theistic evolutionist.
>>>YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>>
>> Wrong again. I don't know of any Christian denomination which
>> requires their members to accept---as dogma----that the earth is
>> young.
>
>Neither do I, but I know of churches where it is taught that such a dogma
>is necessary to salvation and where anyone who expresses the idea that the
>physicakl evidence implies an old earth is shunned or excommunicated.
This doesn't mean that Christian Churches will not in the future
uncover that Genesis 1-3 is historically true. Oldridge may be under
the delusion that there exists incontrovertible evidence that the
earth is old.
>>
>>>Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
>>>Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
>>
>> Wrong again. As far as I know all YECs are also geoCentricists.
>
>They are? So Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were not YEC's. I
>have read claims that they were.
The terms YEC refers to the a very recent group of people from about
the early 1960s. I have no idea whether Copernicus and Galileo
believed in a young earth. However, Newton espoused an infinite
universe. Such a universe is infinitely old and has no center.
>>
>>>>Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
>>>spherical Earth.
>>
>> Wrong again. Flat Earthers consider "all" who hold that the earth to
>> be spherical to be mistaken not just geoCentricists. This would
>> include atheists and Christians alike.
>
>You are mincing words. Creationists consider atheists and Christians who
>accept the science of evolution to be in error about special creation.
Oldridge obviously completely missed the intent of Frank J's chain of
premises.
>>
>> In any event. . .even if any of these were examples similar to the
>> behavior of theistic evolutionists (which they are not) how would they
>> be evidence of the hypocrisy of IDers?
>
>IDers, like the YEC movement that spawned them are engaged in a conspiracy
>to sneak religious dogma (special creation) into school science classes
>past the US constitution's ban on established religions. All their
>actions show this to be their primary agenda.
Since Oldridge doesn't produce a single quote from Dembski or Behe to
substantiate this I suspect Oldridge merely spouts the nonsensical
political hackery repeated ad nauseum. Oldridge undoubtedly has never
read a single full length work by an ID advocate and argues from
complete ignorance.
> In other words, the
>conspiracy is rooted in hypocrisy from the get-go. And how the root
>twists, so twists the tree. Rotten root, rotten fruit. I didn't say
>that--I cribbed it from a 1st century itinerant preacher named Jesus.
This from the theistic evolutionist who ignores Scripture whenever his
atheist masters command it.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers’ “theory” must
>>>be the correct one. ;-)
>>
>> This suffers from the fallacy of irrelevent conclusion (ignoratio
>> elenchi)
>
>No, I think the anaogy is apt.
Since he set out to prove that IDers were hypocrites the criticism was
charitable. And as I pointed out all of his supposed analogies to
TEers were mistaken.
>>
>> Frank J sets out to prove that IDers are hypocrits in their charge
>> against TEers and fails to do so.
>
>They, like all creationist activists are hypocrites in their attempt to
>appear as conservatives, both theologically and politially. They are, in
>fact, subversive radical heretics bent on imposing their heresy on society
>by force. Hence all the political action to insinuate their false ideas
>into the schools.
>
>>
>> Frank J fails to present any analogous examples to the behavior of
>> TEers.
>>
>> Frank J shows his usual bafoonery.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>And YOU show your usual bigotry, hypocrisy and outright rebellion against
>the deity you CLAIM you believe in--along with your acceptance of those
>cults who excommunicate HONEST Christians.
Oldridge has not proved any of this.
>
>Good luck explaining that to my Boss. He can see right through your
>deceptions, you know! Heck, even the demons from hell who sport with the
>creationist bigots can see through them! So can a lot of ordinary people.
>And those who cannot articulate why your lies are lies can at least sense
>it subconscously. That makes them hostile.
>
>My advice: Wake up and smell the brimstone!
Unlike Oldridge I don't presume to know how God will judge. Unlike
Oldridge however I hold Theological truths to be primary and don't
ignore or abandon the historical truth of Scripture whenever the
atheists command it of me.
Regards,
T Pagano
aganunitsi
<theological snip>
> Unlike Oldridge I don't presume to know how God will judge. Unlike
> Oldridge however I hold Theological truths to be primary and don't
> ignore or abandon the historical truth of Scripture whenever the
> atheists command it of me.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
What if another theist, say an orthodox Rabbi, commands you to? With
something like "You Christians took our Tanakh, rearranged it, added
some deuterocanonical texts and lost a plethora of meaning in
translation from Hebrew to Greek. Please stop spreading this incorrect
Scripture, convert to Judaism and spread the (correct) Tanakh."
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>
>Accusing someone of being "accommodating" is hardly vicious. And
>neither is my more accurate accusation of "subverting." The problem
>with theistic evolutionists is not their belief in atheistic theories,
>per se. It is that they hold themselves up as Christians yet place
>primacy of truth in human conjectures rather than in theological truths
>guarranteed as true by an Omniscient Being.
>
God (the universe) than on the words of men (the Bible, and in
particular interpretations of the Bible).
Considering the divergent views held by creationists, I find the
existence of such theological truths to be implausible. Would you care
to debate with Ray Martinez whether geocentrism is a theological truth
guaranteed at true by an omniscient being?
--
alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Acusing creationists of lying is the last refuge of the intellectually
>bankrupt.
you mean other than that it can be proved you're a liar?
> Atheism doen't imply lying anymore than creationism does.
wrong. atheism is a denial of god's existence. creationism is lying
about god's existence
>Atheists do however explicitly exclude all supernatural possibilities
>for metaphysical reasons and not scientific ones.
correct. simply because, in 2000 years, creationists have yet to
produce a SINGLE supernatural phenomenon. not one. not a single
solitary one.
>
>The atheistic scientific community (that Oldridge defends as a
>theistic evolutionist) sees the Virgin birth and the Resurrection as
>nothing but silly superstitious nonsense. It places it in the same
>category as Genesis 1-3. If Oldridge is a genuine Christian how
>exactly does he know that the Virgin birth and Resurection is true and
>Genesis 1-3 is not historical?
how do you know what mohammed did wasn't true? what the buddha did? as
dawkins pointed out, all religious believers are atheists with respect
to other religions.
>
>I know I've struck a raw nerve when I get this kind of emotional
>response. Oldridge knows I'm right. He knows as a Christian that
>theological truths take precedence over human conjectures but as a
>TEer he follows his atheist masters.
christian truth is a human conjecture. there are 38,000 christian
denominations. if that figure alone isn't proof that 'christian truth'
is a conjecture, then what is?
>>
>>The reason it's false is because it ASSUES that TE is based on the same
>>superstitious (heretical) ideas about scripture, its interpretation and
>>place in Christian worship that you heretics are trying to impose on the
>>rest of us by force in the first place.
>
>But one wonders how Oldridge rationalizes belief in the Resurrection
>but eschews the historical value of Genesis 1-3.
because genesis 1-3 is not literally possible.
>
>I don't doubt God's truths because he has authority over the truth.
how do you know that's true?
>Since the history of science has shown that most human conjectures are
>false my skepticism is justified.
similar claims can be made about religion. with 38,000 christian
denominatins, you can find one that affirms or denies almost every
chrstian belief
so which is true?
>>
>>They are? So Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were not YEC's. I
>>have read claims that they were.
>
>The terms YEC refers to the a very recent group of people from about
>the early 1960s.
well, no. ellen white, a founder of the 7th day adventists, was laying
the foundations of creationism early in the 20th century.
see ronald numbers' book 'the creationists'.
>
>Unlike Oldridge I don't presume to know how God will judge. Unlike
>Oldridge however I hold Theological truths to be primary and don't
>ignore or abandon the historical truth of Scripture whenever the
>atheists command it of me.
which historical truth? the one that advocate slavery? that said the
jews wanted christ dead? the one that advocated 2nd class status for
women, or that homosexuals should be killed?
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>
>Unfortunately most human conjectures are false and this is the crux of
>the matter against theistic evolutionists. They hold up human
>conjectures whose truthlikeness is unknown and place it above
>Theological statements----the truth of which is guarranteed by an
>Omniscient God with access to the truth.
why are theological statements not conjectures? most of them have been
wrong.
>
>On the rare occasion that we actually arrive at a true statement about
>the world there can be no conflict with true theological statements.
>
>
theology has never even once made a true statement about the world
BURT
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:45:40 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
If they believe that God created at the Big Bang what is the problem?
How are they subverting?
I know I don't.
Mitch Raemsch
Nick Keighley
> On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> > ><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 26, 11:30 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >> > "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > >> >news:3ecbfe39-23b0-49c6...@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > > When IDers set out to fool a new audience
>
> > >> > k00k-a-d00dle-d00...!
>
> > >> > [snip PMS inspired conspiracy theory rantings]
>
> > >> You are a complete and utter ass. You _deserve_ to have a planet with
> > >> one superpower, the U.S. run by fanatical Christians, who would fry
> > >> your ugly butt. They _pretend_ to have respect for your rantings but
> > >> you are, in their view, a pagan and an enemy. Unlike secularists and
> > >> most other Christians, they would eventually kill you.
> >
> > >It just depends on the political situation. History would tell us
> > >that if they wanted to drum up a bunch of quick political support the
> > >religious fanatics would start attacking other religions and guys like
> > >Kalkidas would be on the short list for elimination. If they are
> > >fairly secure and don't need the quick political boost then they will
> > >likely start by eliminating those with views closest to their own, but
> > >not considered to be among the worthy and work their way outwards and
> > >get to folks like Kalkidas fairly late in the game. So guys like
> > >Kalkidas would prefer a stong political base for the religious
> > >fanatics that can't stand the moderate Christian groups, so that he
> > >would be less of a target, temporarily. Really, his biggest problem
> > >would be if the fundies needed the moderates to gain enough political
> > >power to do what they want to do. Mob appeal is one way to get it and
> > >there isn't much better way to get mob support than to start some new
> > >crusade. His level of incompetence is such that he doesn't realize
> > >that, that is the current situation. The guys that want to take us
> > >back to the dark ages actually need the support of the moderates to
> > >help them get there. That is why they spend so much time trying to
> > >act like they are reasonable people.
> >
> > The atheistic regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung murdered a combined
> > 60 million of their own people (Stalin 20 million and Mao 40 million)
> > and in the space of a few short years. This makes every other
> > religious regime throughout all of recorded history look like candy
> > asses.
>
> > Atheism has no bounds or limits on its behavior. Atheism's behavior
> > is purely darwinian. It acts to take over a niche and kill everything
> > in its way. That Okimoto overlooks these purely atheistic regimes of
> > murder and singles out religious ones is yet another reason to
> > believe that his so-called Methodism is nothing but sheep's clothing.
>
> What an IDiot Pags. How could anyone be so stupid. Some of the
> examples that I had in mind when I wrote the paragraph that you
> stumbled over was the French revolution and the Nazis. You are just a
> total loser. What did Stalin do to consolidate power?
er, eliminated the NKVD, eliminated the officer class, eliminated the
Kulaks, forcibly relocated the Cossacks, forcibly relocated Uzbeks,
suppressed Judaism and Christianity...
er, what was the point of the question?
--
nick keighley
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> "Atheism has no philosophical constraints on behavior"
>
> That is the first thing you've ever said that I agree with!
>
> Atheism has no philosophical base that acts as a *constraint* on
> inherent human savagery, the violence and sadism we inherited from our
> ape ancestors. (Genetically, we're more related to the violent and
> savage chimps than we are to the more peaceful bonobos.)
really? Are you sure? Do you have a cite?
<snip>
Garamond Lethe
Well, let's see:
Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello, "Altruistic Helping in Human
Infants and Young Chimpanzees", Science 3 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5765, pp. 1301 - 1303.
and
Felix Warneken, Brian Hare, Alicia P. Melis, Daniel Hanus, Michael
Tomasello, "Spontaneous Altruism by Chimpanzees and Young Children", PLoS
Biology, July 2007.
From the abstract of the latter:
"People often act on behalf of others. They do so without immediate
personal gain, at cost to themselves, and even toward unfamiliar
individuals. Many researchers have claimed that such altruism emanates
from a species-unique psychology not found in humans' closest living
evolutionary relatives, such as the chimpanzee. In favor of this view,
the few experimental studies on altruism in chimpanzees have produced
mostly negative results. In contrast, we report experimental evidence
that chimpanzees perform basic forms of helping in the absence of rewards
spontaneously and repeatedly toward humans and conspecifics."
Atheism also has no philosophical base that acts as a *constraint* on
inherent human altruism.
Steven L.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-4ttk265ibotjn...@4ax.com:
No. What they're claiming is that the real evidence of God's handiwork
is in the natural world, which we can see, analyze and experiment with.
Not in the Bible, a book which has been repeatedly translated, amended,
added to, redacted, and interpreted over the centuries.
You should always go to the source whenever feasible. And if God
really did create the Universe, then the Universe is the best source we
have.
> >> TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
> >> Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
> >> effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
> >> And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
> >
> >Wrong. CHRISTIANS, as opposed to creationist heretics, base our doctrines
> >and teachings on the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurredtion of Jesus
> >Christ, not some latter-day superstitions about biblical texts preserved
> >in our tradition.
>
>
> The atheistic scientific community (that Oldridge defends as a
> theistic evolutionist) sees the Virgin birth and the Resurrection as
> nothing but silly superstitious nonsense. It places it in the same
> category as Genesis 1-3. If Oldridge is a genuine Christian how
> exactly does he know that the Virgin birth and Resurection is true and
> Genesis 1-3 is not historical?
I don't think theistic evolutionists claim they can prove the
Resurrection happened.
They take that on faith, just as they take their belief in God on faith.
Why don't you try ASKING a theistic evolutionist what he believes,
rather than putting false words in his mouth as you just did?
-- Steven L.
Dave Oldridge
YOU just did, moron!
>
>
>>
>>Good luck explaining that to my Boss. He can see right through your
>>deceptions, you know! Heck, even the demons from hell who sport with
>>the creationist bigots can see through them! So can a lot of ordinary
>>people. And those who cannot articulate why your lies are lies can at
>>least sense it subconscously. That makes them hostile.
>>
>>My advice: Wake up and smell the brimstone!
>
> Unlike Oldridge I don't presume to know how God will judge. Unlike
Yes you do, LIAR!
> Oldridge however I hold Theological truths to be primary and don't
> ignore or abandon the historical truth of Scripture whenever the
> atheists command it of me.
Oh well, I did MY job and admonished you Are you adamant about never
repenting the LIES? If so, have a nice hell.
I am not an atheist. What I am commanding of you is obedience to the
deity you LIE about following.
And the only exposed nerve here is yours. Enjoy your life as a devil
worshipper. I have no more use for your vile politics.
You don't seem to know any theological truths. But that's what you get
when you worship a demon of lies and SAY (falsely) that it is worship of
God.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Stanley Friesen
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:06:39 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>I know I've struck a raw nerve when I get this kind of emotional
>>response. Oldridge knows I'm right. He knows as a Christian that
>>theological truths take precedence over human conjectures but as a
>>TEer he follows his atheist masters.
Over human *conjectures*, but science is not about conjectures.
>
>christian truth is a human conjecture. there are 38,000 christian
>denominations. if that figure alone isn't proof that 'christian truth'
>is a conjecture, then what is?
>
I would quibble with this. The core doctrines are actually pretty much
agreed upon. The main differences are in how those doctrines are to be
applied in worship and practice.
>>
>>I don't doubt God's truths because he has authority over the truth.
>
>how do you know that's true?
The Bible tells him so? He seems to place more faith in the Bible than
he does in his own connection with God.
Stanley Friesen
>
>"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
>news:apagano-4ttk265ibotjn...@4ax.com:
>>
>> The atheistic scientific community (that Oldridge defends as a
>> theistic evolutionist) sees the Virgin birth and the Resurrection as
>> nothing but silly superstitious nonsense. It places it in the same
>> category as Genesis 1-3. If Oldridge is a genuine Christian how
>> exactly does he know that the Virgin birth and Resurection is true and
>> Genesis 1-3 is not historical?
>
>I don't think theistic evolutionists claim they can prove the
>Resurrection happened.
>
>They take that on faith, just as they take their belief in God on faith.
Correct, at least for myself and those I know personally. If, as I
believe, science is agnostic about the existence and nature of God, then
it follows that any belief regarding God, including the Resurrection, is
due to faith not "proof".
>
>Why don't you try ASKING a theistic evolutionist what he believes,
>rather than putting false words in his mouth as you just did?
>
I suppose because that would mean he would actually have to treat us as
people instead of heretics.
Eric Root
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:45:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>
>
>
>
>
> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
> >8bcc26l9ieqkid0tnkel64e3l9ddtk9...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
> >>>have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
>
> >>>Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
> >>>admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
> >>>think it’s atheistic.
>
> >> Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
> >> supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
>
> >Creationists insist that lying in God's name is the only path to
> >salvation. THAT is atheistic, since it requires dishonesty from all
> >believers, thereby DELIBErATELY excluding honest people from the kingdom
> >of the creationist "god!"
>
> Acusing creationists of lying is the last refuge of the intellectually
> bankrupt.
Denial of lying is the last refuge of the morally bankrupt, which, of
course, is morally worse.
> Atheism doen't imply lying anymore than creationism does.
Oldridge wasn't talking about atheism; he was talking about normal,
secular science. Your trying to make it about athiesm is precisely
the kind of lying that normal people justly accuse you of.
> Atheists do however explicitly exclude all supernatural possibilities
> for metaphysical reasons and not scientific ones.
So what; science is done by people of many religious persuasions for
methodologically naturalistic reasons. Why do you persist in
pretending otherwise?
>
> >>> When they are reminded that there are many
> >>>“theistic evolutionists” IDers dismiss them as “accomodationists.”
>
> >> I've never seen anyone use such a label to characterize TEers. Is it
> >> an accurate assessment?
>
> >I have. The IDers principle proponents have written some fairly vicious
> >attacks on theisitic eolutionists (as they call any believer who accepts
> >the science on the evidence).
>
> Accusing someone of being "accommodating" is hardly vicious.
True. Accommodation is a social necessity, like religious freedom.
> And
> neither is my more accurate accusation of "subverting."
Yes, that is a vicious canard. TEists are counter-subverting
Christians from attempts by fundamentalists to require not only denial
of the physical sciences but also of what we know about translation,
human error, and the transmission of documents. Creationists want to
raise the Bible to the status of a magically perfect Golden Calf.
> The problem
> with theistic evolutionists is not their belief in atheistic theories,
> per se. It is that they hold themselves up as Christians yet place
> primacy of truth in human conjectures rather than in theological
> truths guarranteed as true by an Omniscient Being.
No. We place primacy in the highly-informed conjectures of experts in
the appropriate disciplines over the crackpot and unevidenced
conjectures about theological truths conjectured by less intelligent,
less moral, hostile, and concrete-thinking charlatans.
>
> snip
>
> >> TEers usually don't attempt to explicitly adjust dogma or reinterpret
> >> Scripture. They simply ignore Scripture by arguing that God can
> >> effect the origin of life and biological diversity anyway He chooses.
> >> And that God did it however the atheists say He did.
That God did it however the evidence shows, and without subverting the
scientific process by inappropriate reference to prescientific
literature.
>
> >Wrong. CHRISTIANS, as opposed to creationist heretics, base our doctrines
> >and teachings on the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurredtion of Jesus
> >Christ, not some latter-day superstitions about biblical texts preserved
> >in our tradition.
>
> The atheistic scientific community (that Oldridge defends as a
> theistic evolutionist)
No, the scientific community, atheistic, Christian, Hindu,, Jewish,
etc.
> sees the Virgin birth and the Resurrection as
> nothing but silly superstitious nonsense.
So what? Aren't there any other people's views that you consider
nonsense?
> It places it in the same
> category as Genesis 1-3. If Oldridge is a genuine Christian how
> exactly does he know that the Virgin birth and Resurection is true
He doesn't, he just accepts it on faith.
> and
> Genesis 1-3 is not historical?
How could it be historical? People, let alone writing, did not exist
yet.
>
> Oldridge tells us in his own words:
>
> [BEGIN OLDRIDGE QUOTE]>God did what He did whatever wey He did it. If the physical evidence
> >suggests that He did it differently from the way that ypur incompetent
> >understanding of tradition says He should, then that is YOUR problem.
>
> [END QUOTE]
Right. And your failure is that you don't take it as constructive
criticism and change your position. Instead, you continue to
stubbornly stick to your weird, pagan beliefs. Magic, error-free
books!
>
> He proves my position. Oldridge essentially says that he places
> primacy of faith in human conjectures and NOT Scripture.
How are Scripture (i'm not sure if capitalization is proper) and its
interpretation not also human conjecture, that you accept on faith
because you like it for emotional reasons?
>
> > You
> >are, of course, fully entitled to preach your heresy from the pulpits of
> >your wo-called churches and even to hire private instructors to lie to
> >your own chgildren about science. You, the Discovery Institute, the ICR
> >and the whole GODDAMN (literally) lot of you have NO right to impose your
> >devil-spawn heresies on the children of real Christians in our public
> >schools. No legal right and no moral right. And if you try to usurp the
> >legal right by force, we (Christians) have a MORAL right to pray your
> >charred little souls back into hell along with the demons who are your
> >real "gods!"
Oldridge is wrong here: Christians don't have the right to pray
anybody into hell. Too may are on the way as it is.
>
> This is irrational, ad hominen, nonsense. Oldridge is only too quick
> to give away the Scriptural store to human conjectures based solely
> upon corroborative evidence. But astrology can amass mountains of
> such evidence and most agree that it is both false and unscientific.
> All false scientific theories can amass corroborative evidence since
> all false theories (of any content) have true consequences. On this
> shakey ground does Oldridge really intend to forsake the primacy of
> Scripture for human conjectures? Apparently so.
>
Scientific conjectures for scientific purposes. Theological
conjectures for theological purposes.
> Today Oldridge gives away Genesis 1-3 as a silly superstitious story.
Can you prove this? Cite exactly where he calls it that.
> Tomorrow what else will he give up? The Resurrection?
>
>
>
> >> This isn't accommodation but subversion.
>
Much less than your worship of the Bible as a Golden Calf.
> >Damn (literally again) right! Creationism is a subversive anti-democratic
> >conspiracy against the US constitution and against the real Church.
>
> I know I've struck a raw nerve when I get this kind of emotional
> response.
Bull, it's normal frustration at your evil-hearted unteachability.
> Oldridge knows I'm right.
Nice try, o childish one. Keep crying to your Golden Calf to make the
real world go away.
> He knows as a Christian that
> theological truths take precedence over human conjectures
Sure, but his human conjectures of those theological truths trump
yours, because his conflict less with the real world.
> but as a
> TEer he follows his atheist masters.
He has the exact same atheist masters that you do and arguably fewer
Satanic ones, since he lacks your Golden Calf.
>
> >>>IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you’ll find
> >>>that IDers consider TEs “the worst of the worst.” IDers whining about
> >>>“accomodationists” is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
> >>>the kettle black, because:
>
> >> No where here does Frank J show that the charge against TEers is
> >> false. Does he show below that the charge is hypocritical?
>
> >The reason it's false is because it ASSUES that TE is based on the same
> >superstitious (heretical) ideas about scripture, its interpretation and
> >place in Christian worship that you heretics are trying to impose on the
> >rest of us by force in the first place.
>
> But one wonders how Oldridge rationalizes belief in the Resurrection
> but eschews the historical value of Genesis 1-3. How does he know
> that one is historical and one is not.
One could have happened, with a miracle; the other couldn't have
happened without millions of miracles.
> Most atheists don't doubt
> that a man named Jesus existed but consider Oldridge's belief in the
> Resurrection to be silly superstitious nonsense and they'd have plenty
> of science to show that resurrection is impossible.
>
So what?
>
>
> >>>OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
> >>>common descent.
>
> >> Wrong again. OECs, YECs and IDers all presume common descent.
>
> >No, they do not. They presume separate creation of "kinds."
>
> Indeed they do but they don't believe that every population that has
> ever existed was specially created. That would be pretty obviously
> false. They believe that a finite number of protype kinds were
> specially created by God and that every other population arose by
> common descent.
>
> >And "kind" turns out to be a flexible taxon denoting any groupings for
> >which the creationist using it wishes to deny common descent!
>
> Unfortunately "species" and every other taxon suffers from the same
> fuzzy subjectivity.
>
> >> However, all doubt common descent from some First Common Ancestor.
> >Your doubt and a couple of bucks will get you a coffee and donut.
>
> I don't doubt God's truths because he has authority over the truth.
But your human conjectures about God's truths are inferior to those of
scientists because they are kludgy and unesthetic, you being a less
talented at thinking.
> Since the history of science has shown that most human conjectures are
> false my skepticism is justified.
Only justified if you apply to your own theological beliefs.
> Oldridge demonstrates here that he
> doesn't worship the one true God but atheistic human knowledge.
> This
> is the mark of the theistic evolutionist.
>
Another vicious canard; and the pot calling the kettle black, seeing
as how Pagano doesn't worship the one true God, but his own
theological conjectures.
> >>>YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>
> >> Wrong again. I don't know of any Christian denomination which
> >> requires their members to accept---as dogma----that the earth is
> >> young.
>
> >Neither do I, but I know of churches where it is taught that such a dogma
> >is necessary to salvation and where anyone who expresses the idea that the
> >physicakl evidence implies an old earth is shunned or excommunicated.
>
> This doesn't mean that Christian Churches will not in the future
> uncover that Genesis 1-3 is historically true.
How are churches going to uncover this? Wouldn't it take scientists?
> Oldridge may be under
> the delusion that there exists incontrovertible evidence that the
> earth is old.
Can you prove that he's under such a delusion, rather than recognizing
the scientific truth that it is vastly likely, to the point that
believing otherwise is perverse?
(snip a bunch of geocentrism stuff)
>
> >IDers, like the YEC movement that spawned them are engaged in a conspiracy
> >to sneak religious dogma (special creation) into school science classes
> >past the US constitution's ban on established religions. All their
> >actions show this to be their primary agenda.
>
> Since Oldridge doesn't produce a single quote from Dembski or Behe to
> substantiate this I suspect Oldridge merely spouts the nonsensical
> political hackery repeated ad nauseum.
Really? You don't think there is a consiparacy to sneak special
creation into public schools, without his substantiating it? What
have all those court cases been about?
> Oldridge undoubtedly has never
> read a single full length work by an ID advocate and argues from
> complete ignorance.
Why should one read the whole work? The main points have been covered
and debunked for us. Why reinvent the wheel?
(snip)
Eric Root
Eric Root
> bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:06:39 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>I know I've struck a raw nerve when I get this kind of emotional
> >>response. Oldridge knows I'm right. He knows as a Christian that
> >>theological truths take precedence over human conjectures but as a
> >>TEer he follows his atheist masters.
>
> Over human *conjectures*, but science is not about conjectures.
>
> >christian truth is a human conjecture. there are 38,000 christian
> >denominations. if that figure alone isn't proof that 'christian truth'
> >is a conjecture, then what is?
>
> I would quibble with this. The core doctrines are actually pretty much
> agreed upon. The main differences are in how those doctrines are to be
> applied in worship and practice.
>
>
>
> >>I don't doubt God's truths because he has authority over the truth.
>
> >how do you know that's true?
>
> The Bible tells him so? He seems to place more faith in the Bible than
> he does in his own connection with God.
> --
That's my problem with the whole fundamentalist/literalist trope. Are
the inspirations of those in the past to trump the inspirations we
have today? And especially, are the inspirations of the hard-hearted
concrete-semithinkers to trump my own? What about "soul competency"
and religious freedom?
> The peace of God be with you.
And also with you.
>
> Stanley Friesen
Eric Root
Dave Oldridge
news:b9ebc544-9641-430d...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
And many of the creationist "miracles" can only be performed by a deity
who INTENDS TO DECEIVE.
Actually, Pags is guilty here of deliberate false witness. That seems to
be required by the creationist false god for whatever it means by
"salvation."
>
>> >>>YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
>>
>> >> Wrong again. I don't know of any Christian denomination which
>> >> requires their members to accept---as dogma----that the earth is
>> >> young.
>>
>> >Neither do I, but I know of churches where it is taught that such a
>> >dogma is necessary to salvation and where anyone who expresses the
>> >idea that the physicakl evidence implies an old earth is shunned or
>> >excommunicated.
>>
>> This doesn't mean that Christian Churches will not in the future
>> uncover that Genesis 1-3 is historically true.
>
> How are churches going to uncover this? Wouldn't it take scientists?
Genesis was assembled during the reign of Cyrus to provide a mythic title
deed to the holy land. It was NEVER intended as a literal natural history
and is included in Christian scripture as an inheritance from 1st century
Judaism. Pags is an idolater and a cultists, worshipping a book and those
who impose their own private interpretation on it.
Like most fundamentalist protestants, Pags lifts the book out of its
historical and traditional context and elevates latter-day
misinterpretations above the traditions of the faith he lies about
following.
Certainly, he and his fellow cultists are entitled to the free exercise of
their religion--in their churches, private schools and homes. But they
are not entitled to have their lies about evolution taught in our public
schools at government expense.
They pretend to be conservative, both in religion and politics, these
people. But what they are is seditious radicals in politics and latter-
day heretics in religion.
The fact that atheists agree with separation of church and state and
people like Pags do not just shows that Pags is unaware of why his own
cult's spiritual forbears adopted the idea.
>
>> Oldridge may be under
>> the delusion that there exists incontrovertible evidence that the
>> earth is old.
>
> Can you prove that he's under such a delusion, rather than recognizing
> the scientific truth that it is vastly likely, to the point that
> believing otherwise is perverse?
If it's a delusion, then so is Pags under it, since he has never managed
to provide any REAL evidence that controverts the scientifically accepted
age of the earth. He can, of course, retell any number of LIES about the
evidence, but they don't support his position, only his status as a
devotee of the father of lies!
>
> (snip a bunch of geocentrism stuff)
>
>>
>> >IDers, like the YEC movement that spawned them are engaged in a
>> >conspiracy to sneak religious dogma (special creation) into school
>> >science classes past the US constitution's ban on established
>> >religions. All their actions show this to be their primary agenda.
>>
>> Since Oldridge doesn't produce a single quote from Dembski or Behe to
>> substantiate this I suspect Oldridge merely spouts the nonsensical
>> political hackery repeated ad nauseum.
>
> Really? You don't think there is a consiparacy to sneak special
> creation into public schools, without his substantiating it? What
> have all those court cases been about?
>
>> Oldridge undoubtedly has never
>> read a single full length work by an ID advocate and argues from
>> complete ignorance.
>
> Why should one read the whole work? The main points have been covered
> and debunked for us. Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> (snip)
>
> Eric Root
>
>
>
--
Dave Oldridge+
Eric Root
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:29:13 -0500, macaddicted
>
> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
> >> it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
>
> >"Incomplete" is probably more accurate.
>
> Since all of our theories are, and will always be, hopelessly
> "incomplete" this is a distinction without a difference.
>
>
>
> >> Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
> >> truth with precedence over Scripture.
>
> >So "truth cannot contradict truth," which IIRC goes back to Trent, is
> >wrong? Oh, and the RCC does hold scripture above discovered truth.
>
> Unfortunately most human conjectures are false and this is the crux of
> the matter against theistic evolutionists. They hold up human
> conjectures whose truthlikeness is unknown and place it above
> Theological statements----the truth of which is guarranteed by an
> Omniscient God with access to the truth.
>
Produce the guarantee.
(snip)
Eric Root
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Eric Root" <er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:611259f7-13a6-4567...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:29:13 -0500, macaddicted
>>
>> <macaddictedReMoVeT...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Christians hold that the truth of Scripture is guarranteed by God and
>> >> it is well known that human conjectures are almost always mistaken.
>>
>> >"Incomplete" is probably more accurate.
>>
>> Since all of our theories are, and will always be, hopelessly
>> "incomplete" this is a distinction without a difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Nonetheless the TEer holds the human conjecture as the standard of
>> >> truth with precedence over Scripture.
Bull Shit!
Science holds the facts and evidence above everything else. Though the
CONCLUSIONS may change, as more evidence comes in, the FACTS remain the
same.
Scripture HAS NO FACTS or EVIDENCE - therefore, it is totally meaningless.
Ron O
wrote:
It was about the basic process of elimination. Just something else
Pags can't understand.
Ron Okimoto
Stanley Friesen
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:45:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>I have. The IDers principle proponents have written some fairly vicious
>>attacks on theisitic eolutionists (as they call any believer who accepts
>>the science on the evidence).
>
>Accusing someone of being "accommodating" is hardly vicious. And
>neither is my more accurate accusation of "subverting." The problem
>with theistic evolutionists is not their belief in atheistic theories,
>per se. It is that they hold themselves up as Christians yet place
>primacy of truth in human conjectures rather than in theological
>truths guarranteed as true by an Omniscient Being.
>
Or maybe we read different truths in the Bible than you do?
One truth that I see as important is the teaching the God is the Creator
of all that is. Not only that, but He is represented as creating by
*speaking*. This means, in particular, that the *physical* *world* is as
much God's word as the written word (Bible). So when God's written word
*appears* to contradict His created word, I must question my
understanding of His written word (since human reading comprehension is
more error prone than physical evidence).
>>
>>Wrong. CHRISTIANS, as opposed to creationist heretics, base our doctrines
>>and teachings on the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurredtion of Jesus
>>Christ, not some latter-day superstitions about biblical texts preserved
>>in our tradition.
>
>The atheistic scientific community (that Oldridge defends as a
>theistic evolutionist) sees the Virgin birth and the Resurrection as
>nothing but silly superstitious nonsense.
This is, at best, a mis-characterization. Although *some* TEists may
take this position, it is by no means universal, or even the majority
position among us. Indeed, based on his words you quote above, I would
venture to say Dave *does* accept the resurrection. Actually he
explicitly states he does. So to accuse him of rejecting it is downright
dishonest.
> It places it in the same
>category as Genesis 1-3. If Oldridge is a genuine Christian how
>exactly does he know that the Virgin birth and Resurection is true and
>Genesis 1-3 is not historical?
It is called sound Biblical exegesis, taking into account the historical
context, type of literature, and purpose of each book in the Bible.
>
>Oldridge tells us in his own words:
>
>[BEGIN OLDRIDGE QUOTE]
>>God did what He did whatever wey He did it. If the physical evidence
>>suggests that He did it differently from the way that ypur incompetent
>>understanding of tradition says He should, then that is YOUR problem.
>[END QUOTE]
>
>He proves my position. Oldridge essentially says that he places
>primacy of faith in human conjectures and NOT Scripture.
>
No, he places primacy in God's Created Word over human *interpretation*
of his Written Word. (Reading, in and of itself, constitutes
interpretation: without interpretation writing is just meaningless marks
on paper).
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Dave Oldridge
news:89d736tn2mmjf3gou...@4ax.com:
I don't defend atheis theology, just honest science. And I suggest Pags
repent this lie where he told it. Otherwise it will remain his on the day
of judgment.
And there is no real mention of God having written anything except some
comments in the sand of first century Palestine, long erased due to
erosion.
The Bible is what it is, not what these cultists claim it is in their
effort to deny and defy the sacramanet of Holy Orders.
And none of them seem to hold the commandments of Exodus in the same
regard they hold their incorrect interpretation of Genesis!
--
Dave Oldridge+
Stanley Friesen
>Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in
>> No, he places primacy in God's Created Word over human
>> *interpretation* of his Written Word. (Reading, in and of itself,
>> constitutes interpretation: without interpretation writing is just
>> meaningless marks on paper).
>
>And there is no real mention of God having written anything except some
>comments in the sand of first century Palestine, long erased due to
>erosion.
>
>The Bible is what it is, not what these cultists claim it is in their
>effort to deny and defy the sacramanet of Holy Orders.
>
Good point. Most people like him, however, do not differentiate between
divine inspiration and divine authorship, hence their Bibliolatry.
>And none of them seem to hold the commandments of Exodus in the same
>regard they hold their incorrect interpretation of Genesis!
--
Boikat
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >have a “new science” and that “Darwinists” are “closed-minded” to it.
> >Sometimes they don’t even wait for “Darwinists” to correct them, and
> >admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
> >think it’s atheistic.
>
> Evolutionists readily admit that they exclude even the possibility of
> supernatural action and as such evolutionism is atheistic.
Wrong. The *possibility* is not excluded. The simple fact is that no
*evidence* that any supernatural entity or event was, or is, involved
has ever been found or presented.. The only supposed "evidence"
involves arguments from incredulity and ignorance. That does not
count as evidence.
<snip remaining Pagano Pontification>
Boikat
Darwin123
> On Jun 26, 6:37 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 7:27 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> You can find them on a flat earth.
>
Correction:
You can find them on a "flat earth".
Nick Keighley
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:37:48 -0700, NickKeighleywrote:
> > On 29 June, 14:45, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Atheism has no philosophical constraints on behavior"
the Golden Rule. Iterated prisoner's dilemma.
> >> That is the first thing you've ever said that I agree with!
>
> >> Atheism has no philosophical base that acts as a *constraint* on
> >> inherent human savagery, the violence and sadism we inherited from our
> >> ape ancestors. (Genetically, we're more related to the violent and
> >> savage chimps than we are to the more peaceful bonobos.)
this was the bit that surprised me. I was under the impression that we
were equi-distant from the two chimp species.
> > really? Are you sure? Do you have a cite?
>
> Well, let's see:
>
> Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello, "Altruistic Helping in Human
> Infants and Young Chimpanzees", Science 3 March 2006:
> Vol. 311. no. 5765, pp. 1301 - 1303.
>
> and
>
> Felix Warneken, Brian Hare, Alicia P. Melis, Daniel Hanus, Michael
> Tomasello, "Spontaneous Altruism by Chimpanzees and Young Children", PLoS
> Biology, July 2007.
>
> From the abstract of the latter:
>
> "People often act on behalf of others. They do so without immediate
> personal gain, at cost to themselves, and even toward unfamiliar
> individuals. Many researchers have claimed that such altruism emanates
> from a species-unique psychology not found in humans' closest living
> evolutionary relatives, such as the chimpanzee. In favor of this view,
> the few experimental studies on altruism in chimpanzees have produced
> mostly negative results. In contrast, we report experimental evidence
> that chimpanzees perform basic forms of helping in the absence of rewards
> spontaneously and repeatedly toward humans and conspecifics."
strange no mention of Bonobos...
> Atheism also has no philosophical base that acts as a *constraint* on
> inherent human altruism.
I thought the tree looked like this (ASCII art not my strong suit)
____________________________ chimp
| |__________ bonobo
|
|______________________ human
The vertical lines are an artefact only horizontals count
--
Nick Keighley
Ernest Major
<6f79de24-ed93-4eae...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >> Atheism has no philosophical base that acts as a *constraint* on
>> >> inherent human savagery, the violence and sadism we inherited from our
>> >> ape ancestors. (Genetically, we're more related to the violent and
>> >> savage chimps than we are to the more peaceful bonobos.)
>
>this was the bit that surprised me. I was under the impression that we
>were equi-distant from the two chimp species.
Phylogenetically we are equidistant from the two chimp species, which is
usually stated as us being equally related to the two chimp species.
However, consider your siblings. You are equally related to each of your
siblings. But you share more genes with some of your siblings than with
others. (It can vary from 0% to 100%, but in practice is fairly close to
50%.) With chimpanzees and bonobos the mechanisms are the different, but
the result is the same - one species will have more in common with
humans than the other. I presume that this was the intent of the quoted
material, and the use of related rather than similar was just sloppy
phrasing.
But, I am unaware the statement is supported by evidence. To the best of
my knowledge we don't yet have a bonobo genome, nor has anyone gone
through all the available bonobo sequences to produce an estimate of
similarities among the 3 species.
--
alias Ernest Major
Nick Keighley
> In message
> <6f79de24-ed93-4eae-9b10-7cce62310...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> (Genetically, we're more related to the violent and
> >> >> savage chimps than we are to the more peaceful bonobos.)
>
> >this was the bit that surprised me. I was under the impression that we
> >were equi-distant from the two chimp species.
>
> Phylogenetically we are equidistant from the two chimp species, which is
> usually stated as us being equally related to the two chimp species.
ok
> However, consider your siblings. You are equally related to each of your
> siblings. But you share more genes with some of your siblings than with
> others. (It can vary from 0% to 100%, but in practice is fairly close to
> 50%.)
is this actually true? I Am Not A Biologist, but isn't it the case
with each gene (or DNA chunk) there is a 50/50 chance that my version
matches my brothers? If there were 2 "chunks" then 0% match would be
25% probability, 50% match has 50% probability and 100% match has 25%
probability. As the number of "chunks" rises the more likely a near
50% match becomes. If it's done on a per gene basis there's 20,000 of
'em (well, ~10k anyway!). If it were BPs (I know it isn't) it'd be
millions. Now I know there are linkages and stuff but isn't it still
over whelmingly likely that I share 50% of my DNA with my brother?
> With chimpanzees and bonobos the mechanisms are the different, but
> the result is the same - one species will have more in common with
> humans than the other.
really? Doesn't relatedness correlate with phylogenic seperation?
> I presume that this was the intent of the quoted
> material, and the use of related rather than similar was just sloppy
> phrasing.
yes but what he quoted didn't support his thesis. The summary spoke of
man's low aggression compared with his nearest genetic relatives such
as chimpanzees. I took "chimpanzee" to cover both Pan troglodytes and
Pan paniscus.
> But, I am unaware the statement is supported by evidence. To the best of
> my knowledge we don't yet have a bonobo genome, nor has anyone gone
> through all the available bonobo sequences to produce an estimate of
> similarities among the 3 species.
:-)
Ernest Major
<ccaaeb17-2de3-4ff7...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 12 July, 13:22, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <6f79de24-ed93-4eae-9b10-7cce62310...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> >> (Genetically, we're more related to the violent and
>> >> >> savage chimps than we are to the more peaceful bonobos.)
>>
>> >this was the bit that surprised me. I was under the impression that we
>> >were equi-distant from the two chimp species.
>>
>> Phylogenetically we are equidistant from the two chimp species, which is
>> usually stated as us being equally related to the two chimp species.
>
>ok
>
>
>> However, consider your siblings. You are equally related to each of your
>> siblings. But you share more genes with some of your siblings than with
>> others. (It can vary from 0% to 100%, but in practice is fairly close to
>> 50%.)
Perhaps I should have emphasised more that the 0% and 100% limits are
theoretical, and are very unlikely to be approached even in populations
of billions.
>
>is this actually true? I Am Not A Biologist, but isn't it the case
>with each gene (or DNA chunk) there is a 50/50 chance that my version
>matches my brothers? If there were 2 "chunks" then 0% match would be
>25% probability, 50% match has 50% probability and 100% match has 25%
>probability. As the number of "chunks" rises the more likely a near
>50% match becomes. If it's done on a per gene basis there's 20,000 of
>'em (well, ~10k anyway!). If it were BPs (I know it isn't) it'd be
>millions. Now I know there are linkages and stuff but isn't it still
>over whelmingly likely that I share 50% of my DNA with my brother?
What about with your sister?
If you ignore recombination there are 46 chromosomes. Recombination ups
the number of chunks, but not by more than an order of magnitude.
Assuming I've set up the spreadsheet properly In the absence of
recombination the ratio of having exactly 23 chomosomes in common is
~11.5%.
Google tells me that in the human genome a centimorgan corresponds to
1,000,000 base pairs. If I understand the implications correctly that
implies about 60 crossings over per diploid genome.
>
>> With chimpanzees and bonobos the mechanisms are the different, but
>> the result is the same - one species will have more in common with
>> humans than the other.
>
>really? Doesn't relatedness correlate with phylogenic seperation?
I was trying to make a distinction between relatedness and similarity.
The degree of similarity is correlated with phylogenetic separation. It
is not perfectly correlated.
>
>
>> I presume that this was the intent of the quoted
>> material, and the use of related rather than similar was just sloppy
>> phrasing.
>
>yes but what he quoted didn't support his thesis. The summary spoke of
>man's low aggression compared with his nearest genetic relatives such
>as chimpanzees. I took "chimpanzee" to cover both Pan troglodytes and
>Pan paniscus.
If I read the quoting level corrected the claim came from Steven L, and
the citations from Garamonde Lethe, and weren't intended to support the
thesis.
>
>> But, I am unaware the statement is supported by evidence. To the best of
>> my knowledge we don't yet have a bonobo genome, nor has anyone gone
>> through all the available bonobo sequences to produce an estimate of
>> similarities among the 3 species.
>
>
>:-)
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
James Beck
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 30 June, 09:02, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:37:48 -0700, NickKeighleywrote:
>> > On 29 June, 14:45, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >> "Atheism has no philosophical constraints on behavior"
>
>the Golden Rule. Iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Tail wags dog.
Something like the golden rule might emerge as one possible outcome of
a constrained game, but it is an outcome, not a constraint. Even
getting that outcome requires that the participants play an
equilibrium strategy given the constraints, so it shouldn't be viewed
as a predictor for population behavior. The golden rule is often an
unacceptable minimum anyway; most people are happier if you treat them
as *they* want to be treated, not by some random standard determined
by you.
That's not to say that a particular atheist doesn't come along
dragging some deontological or utilitarian ethical baggage, though the
main difference between him and a religious adherent in that case is
what got packed into the bags. In any event, both the atheist and the
religious share at least one set of constraints on behavior--the law
of the land--whatever its source happens to be.
In a representative democracy, those shared constraints are informed
by less parochial interests than those espoused by a particular
religious group. Consequently, in some sense the complaint of the
religionist boils down to politics: 'You don't follow my
interpretation of my god's diktat, so you're going to hell.'
Fortunately, it's a hollow claim anyway. The mere existence of a god
or gods doesn't imply much in the way of philosophical constraints on
behavior either. Getting from the existence of god to the baggage of
religion requires a lot of additional storytelling.
[snip]
John S. Wilkins
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
> <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 30 June, 09:02, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:37:48 -0700, NickKeighleywrote:
> >> > On 29 June, 14:45, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >> "Atheism has no philosophical constraints on behavior"
> >
> >the Golden Rule. Iterated prisoner's dilemma.
>
> Tail wags dog.
>
> Something like the golden rule might emerge as one possible outcome of
> a constrained game, but it is an outcome, not a constraint. Even
> getting that outcome requires that the participants play an
> equilibrium strategy given the constraints, so it shouldn't be viewed
> as a predictor for population behavior. The golden rule is often an
> unacceptable minimum anyway; most people are happier if you treat them
> as *they* want to be treated, not by some random standard determined
> by you.
Paul Wolff is doing a series on Rawls on his blog right now, in which he
effectively makes just that point about the Original Position.
>
> That's not to say that a particular atheist doesn't come along
> dragging some deontological or utilitarian ethical baggage, though the
> main difference between him and a religious adherent in that case is
> what got packed into the bags. In any event, both the atheist and the
> religious share at least one set of constraints on behavior--the law
> of the land--whatever its source happens to be.
>
> In a representative democracy, those shared constraints are informed
> by less parochial interests than those espoused by a particular
> religious group. Consequently, in some sense the complaint of the
> religionist boils down to politics: 'You don't follow my
> interpretation of my god's diktat, so you're going to hell.'
> Fortunately, it's a hollow claim anyway. The mere existence of a god
> or gods doesn't imply much in the way of philosophical constraints on
> behavior either. Getting from the existence of god to the baggage of
> religion requires a lot of additional storytelling.
More worrying is when those with such baggage suggest that those who
fail to meet the standards of their baggage handlers (to pick at the
metaphor, leaving a nasty scab) are second class citizens with lesser
protections from the law, and they happen to be in the majority in a
winner-takes-all democracy (i.e., mob rule).
Atheists, like *all other primates* are social animals and thus are
subjected to the *biological* constraints of being so. We do ethical
behaviours because that's what primates, and especially apes, do. It is
constitutive.
So if one adopts as part of one's atheism a philosophical egoism, it
pays to note that even the chimps, who really do behave as rational
egoists in pairwise prisoners dilemmas, enforce behaviour norms and
standards of fairness subject to the power structures of their troop
(higher status individuals always get the better share if all are
informed). Assuming they are atheists, that shows that atheists are
always norm-driven.
But humans are slightly eusocial: we err about 5-10% in the direction of
altruistic behaviour even when there is no expectation of recirprocity,
which suggests that there has been some group selection for moral
behaviour in our shared past, just as Darwin suggested in the Descent.
>
>
> [snip]
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
James Beck
Wilkins) wrote:
>James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
>> <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 30 June, 09:02, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:37:48 -0700, NickKeighleywrote:
>> >> > On 29 June, 14:45, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> "Atheism has no philosophical constraints on behavior"
>> >
>> >the Golden Rule. Iterated prisoner's dilemma.
>>
>> Tail wags dog.
>>
>> Something like the golden rule might emerge as one possible outcome of
>> a constrained game, but it is an outcome, not a constraint. Even
>> getting that outcome requires that the participants play an
>> equilibrium strategy given the constraints, so it shouldn't be viewed
>> as a predictor for population behavior. The golden rule is often an
>> unacceptable minimum anyway; most people are happier if you treat them
>> as *they* want to be treated, not by some random standard determined
>> by you.
>
>Paul Wolff is doing a series on Rawls on his blog right now, in which he
>effectively makes just that point about the Original Position.
Our thoughts are rarely unique. The advantage of having professionals
is that they express them more clearly. I'll pay him a visit.
>> That's not to say that a particular atheist doesn't come along
>> dragging some deontological or utilitarian ethical baggage, though the
>> main difference between him and a religious adherent in that case is
>> what got packed into the bags. In any event, both the atheist and the
>> religious share at least one set of constraints on behavior--the law
>> of the land--whatever its source happens to be.
>>
>> In a representative democracy, those shared constraints are informed
>> by less parochial interests than those espoused by a particular
>> religious group. Consequently, in some sense the complaint of the
>> religionist boils down to politics: 'You don't follow my
>> interpretation of my god's diktat, so you're going to hell.'
>> Fortunately, it's a hollow claim anyway. The mere existence of a god
>> or gods doesn't imply much in the way of philosophical constraints on
>> behavior either. Getting from the existence of god to the baggage of
>> religion requires a lot of additional storytelling.
>
>More worrying is when those with such baggage suggest that those who
>fail to meet the standards of their baggage handlers (to pick at the
>metaphor, leaving a nasty scab) are second class citizens with lesser
>protections from the law, and they happen to be in the majority in a
>winner-takes-all democracy (i.e., mob rule).
In that we are usually fortunate. The Puritans (aka Precise-ians as
they were once referred to) react strongly to even slight differences
so for political reasons the American 'disease' is more like a
carefully cultivated garden of weeds pitted against one another.
I say 'usually' fortunate because a winner-takes-all democracy based
on plurality voting often elects the *least* desirable (in terms of
Bayesian regret) candidate. In the recent past we elected one that was
sufficiently cynical to borrow large amounts of money to both fund two
wars and increase certain types of social spending while
simultaneously posturing as an arbiter of moral authority.
The combination of bread, circuses and social authoritarianism is very
dangerous.
>Atheists, like *all other primates* are social animals and thus are
>subjected to the *biological* constraints of being so. We do ethical
>behaviours because that's what primates, and especially apes, do. It is
>constitutive.
>
>So if one adopts as part of one's atheism a philosophical egoism, it
>pays to note that even the chimps, who really do behave as rational
>egoists in pairwise prisoners dilemmas, enforce behaviour norms and
>standards of fairness subject to the power structures of their troop
>(higher status individuals always get the better share if all are
>informed). Assuming they are atheists, that shows that atheists are
>always norm-driven.
>
>But humans are slightly eusocial: we err about 5-10% in the direction of
>altruistic behaviour even when there is no expectation of recirprocity,
>which suggests that there has been some group selection for moral
>behaviour in our shared past, just as Darwin suggested in the Descent.
You're definitely in the eusocial group; you skip over most of the fun
in the numbers game. For example, since only about 3% of adults in the
US identify as atheists, even if all atheists were terrible people,
the other 37% of the population that exhibits chimp-likeness/
baboonification are religious. The catch most of the perverts,
murderers, thugs (gypsies, tramps and thieves, too).
Happily, they're a minority. Unhappily, they can sometimes cooperate
to create significant political swings. Any politician too noble to
carve bits and pieces out of their wedge gets what he/she deserves,
unwarmed and ala mode.
Nick Keighley
> NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes
> >On 12 July, 13:22, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <6f79de24-ed93-4eae-9b10-7cce62310...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >> >> (Genetically, we're more related to the violent and
> >> >> >> savage chimps than we are to the more peaceful bonobos.)
>
> >> >this was the bit that surprised me. I was under the impression that we
> >> >were equi-distant from the two chimp species.
>
> >> Phylogenetically we are equidistant from the two chimp species, which is
> >> usually stated as us being equally related to the two chimp species.
>
> >ok
>
> >> However, consider your siblings. You are equally related to each of your
> >> siblings. But you share more genes with some of your siblings than with
> >> others. (It can vary from 0% to 100%, but in practice is fairly close to
> >> 50%.)
>
> Perhaps I should have emphasised more that the 0% and 100% limits are
> theoretical, and are very unlikely to be approached even in populations
> of billions.
and you need about 8 billion to cover all the cases of choosing n from
23
> >is this actually true? I Am Not A Biologist, but isn't it the case
> >with each gene (or DNA chunk) there is a 50/50 chance that my version
> >matches my brothers? If there were 2 "chunks" then 0% match would be
> >25% probability, 50% match has 50% probability and 100% match has 25%
> >probability. As the number of "chunks" rises the more likely a near
> >50% match becomes. If it's done on a per gene basis there's 20,000 of
> >'em (well, ~10k anyway!). If it were BPs (I know it isn't) it'd be
> >millions. Now I know there are linkages and stuff but isn't it still
> >over whelmingly likely that I share 50% of my DNA with my brother?
>
> What about with your sister?
I don't have a sister
> If you ignore recombination there are 46 chromosomes. Recombination ups
> the number of chunks, but not by more than an order of magnitude.
>
> Assuming I've set up the spreadsheet properly In the absence of
> recombination the ratio of having exactly 23 chomosomes in common is
> ~11.5%.
11.7% my program says. Which means we're doing the same sum!
The chances of no matches is 1e-14 (probability not percent). The
chance of 40-60% of my genome matching my sibling's seems to be about
85% (that's 19-28 matches)
> Google tells me that in the human genome a centimorgan corresponds to
> 1,000,000 base pairs. If I understand the implications correctly that
> implies about 60 crossings over per diploid genome.
plenty I need to look up there! What do you measure as a percentage of
a Welshman? "He's as musical as a centimorgan".
> >> With chimpanzees and bonobos the mechanisms are the different, but
> >> the result is the same - one species will have more in common with
> >> humans than the other.
>
> >really? Doesn't relatedness correlate with phylogenic seperation?
>
> I was trying to make a distinction between relatedness and similarity.
> The degree of similarity is correlated with phylogenetic separation. It
> is not perfectly correlated.
ok
> >> I presume that this was the intent of the quoted
> >> material, and the use of related rather than similar was just sloppy
> >> phrasing.
>
> >yes but what he quoted didn't support his thesis. The summary spoke of
> >man's low aggression compared with his nearest genetic relatives such
> >as chimpanzees. I took "chimpanzee" to cover both Pan troglodytes and
> >Pan paniscus.
>
> If I read the quoting level corrected the claim came from Steven L, and
> the citations from Garamonde Lethe, and weren't intended to support the
> thesis.
ok, I should have said *the* thesis. I thought the cite was supposed
to support the thesis. I see now he was looking at a different bit.
Maybe even citing asomethign that disagreed with Steven L.
> >> But, I am unaware the statement is supported by evidence. To the best of
> >> my knowledge we don't yet have a bonobo genome, nor has anyone gone
> >> through all the available bonobo sequences to produce an estimate of
> >> similarities among the 3 species.
<snip>
Nashton
>
> ... a country of Christians, who cheerfully did the killing for
> Stalin....
LOL
>
>> and Mao Tse Tung
>
> ... a country of Buddhist, who cheerfully did the killing for Mao
> Zedong....
LOL
>
>> murdered a combined
>> 60 million of their own people (Stalin 20 million and Mao 40 million)
>> and in the space of a few short years. This makes every other
>> religious regime throughout all of recorded history look like candy
>> asses.
>
> But it was Christians (Stalinist Russia) and Buddhist (Zedongist
> China) who killed all of those people---- not atheists.
>
> Pol Pot, in Cambodia, used Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims to
> murder millions of Theravada Buddhism. Theists did the killing,
> not atheists.
>
> The same is true for Christian Germany (Holocaust) and Christian
> United States (Indian Wars, VietNam, Korea, East Timor, Iran,
> Iraq, Libya, etc.). The Christians did the killing, not atheists.
>
> But you know these facts already.
LOL
>
>
Nashton
<snip>
>
> Atheists, like *all other primates* are social animals and thus are
> subjected to the *biological* constraints of being so. We do ethical
> behaviours because that's what primates, and especially apes, do. It is
> constitutive.
Ethical behavior cannot be ascribed to primates. I don't care who you
are or how many degrees in philosophy you've amassed, it just cannot be
done.
You, of all people ought to know this.
> So if one adopts as part of one's atheism a philosophical egoism, it
> pays to note that even the chimps, who really do behave as rational
> egoists in pairwise prisoners dilemmas, enforce behaviour norms and
> standards of fairness subject to the power structures of their troop
> (higher status individuals always get the better share if all are
> informed). Assuming they are atheists, that shows that atheists are
> always norm-driven.
Assuming chimps are atheists?
Aren't we anthropomorphizing a tad, here?
>
> But humans are slightly eusocial: we err about 5-10% in the direction of
> altruistic behaviour even when there is no expectation of recirprocity,
> which suggests that there has been some group selection for moral
> behaviour in our shared past, just as Darwin suggested in the Descent.
Genetic determinism?
Isn't this rejected by most in the field of genetics?
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>
>
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> and you need about 8 billion to cover all the cases of choosing n from
> 23
million! You need about 8 *million* to cover all the cases of choosing
n from 23. 2^23 is only 8x10^6.
good grief
Ernest Major
<d4d019ef-a97d-4cc5...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Nick
Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> writes
>> Google tells me that in the human genome a centimorgan corresponds to
>> 1,000,000 base pairs. If I understand the implications correctly that
>> implies about 60 crossings over per diploid genome.
>
>plenty I need to look up there! What do you measure as a percentage of
>a Welshman? "He's as musical as a centimorgan".
A centimorgan is the distance between loci on chromosomes such that
there is a 1% chance of crossing over between the loci during meiosis.
As the recombination frequency is not fixed along and between
chromosomes this is not strictly a physical distance, but on average, if
the source I found was accurate, a centimorgan corresponds to about
1,000,000 base pairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimorgan
From these figures we can produce an estimate of how many different
chunks of chromosome go to make up an average human haploid genome. I
haven't yet deduced how to calculate this estimate, but my finger in the
air guess is that its about 100. That makes the peak of degree of
similarity rather narrower (British understatement) than in the absence
of recombination. (You've already agreed that in the absence of
recombination that the peak is rather broad.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Nick Keighley
> Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >> Google tells me that in the human genome a centimorgan corresponds to
> >> 1,000,000 base pairs. If I understand the implications correctly that
> >> implies about 60 crossings over per diploid genome.
>
> >plenty I need to look up there! What do you measure as a percentage of
> >a Welshman? "He's as musical as a centimorgan".
I was just being facetious. I intended to look it up.
> A centimorgan is the distance between loci on chromosomes such that
> there is a 1% chance of crossing over between the loci during meiosis.
> As the recombination frequency is not fixed along and between
> chromosomes this is not strictly a physical distance, but on average, if
> the source I found was accurate, a centimorgan corresponds to about
> 1,000,000 base pairs.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimorgan
>
> From these figures we can produce an estimate of how many different
> chunks of chromosome go to make up an average human haploid genome. I
> haven't yet deduced how to calculate this estimate,
count how may BP's in [the genome(?)] [a chromosome?] and divide by a
million?
> but my finger in the
> air guess is that its about 100.
there are about 100 chunks of DNA? Rather than the 46 we were playing
with earlier.
> That makes the peak of degree of
> similarity rather narrower (British understatement) than in the absence
> of recombination. (You've already agreed that in the absence of
> recombination that the peak is rather broad.)
um I make the 50:50 match about 8%. And the 40-60% match about 95%
But I may have misunderstood you.
Thanks!
Nick Keighley
> On 7/12/10 10:57 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > Atheists, like *all other primates* are social animals and thus are
> > subjected to the *biological* constraints of being so. We do ethical
> > behaviours because that's what primates, and especially apes, do. It is
> > constitutive.
>
> Ethical behavior cannot be ascribed to primates. I don't care who you
> are or how many degrees in philosophy you've amassed, it just cannot be
> done. You, of all people ought to know this.
it's pretty clear chimps understand things like fairness
> > So if one adopts as part of one's atheism a philosophical egoism, it
> > pays to note that even the chimps, who really do behave as rational
> > egoists in pairwise prisoners dilemmas, enforce behaviour norms and
> > standards of fairness subject to the power structures of their troop
> > (higher status individuals always get the better share if all are
> > informed). Assuming they are atheists, that shows that atheists are
> > always norm-driven.
>
> Assuming chimps are atheists?
> Aren't we anthropomorphizing a tad, here?
seems a fair default position to me. Isn't religion one of those
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person
could believe in them." -- George Orwell
> > But humans are slightly eusocial: we err about 5-10% in the direction of
> > altruistic behaviour even when there is no expectation of recirprocity,
> > which suggests that there has been some group selection for moral
> > behaviour in our shared past, just as Darwin suggested in the Descent.
>
> Genetic determinism?
> Isn't this rejected by most in the field of genetics?
I don't see him saying "genetic determinism" in there.
John, If I'm nice to someone with no expection of direct reward, but I
act as I do only because I prefer to live in a society that is mostly
composed of similarly nice people, am I acting altruistically?
John S. Wilkins
> John, If I'm nice to someone with no expection of direct reward, but I
> act as I do only because I prefer to live in a society that is mostly
> composed of similarly nice people, am I acting altruistically?
Good question. There are those who think that humans only do what they
do for an expectation of reward, directly or indirectly. I think
"altruism" is one of those relative terms. Psychological altruism
occurs, but it's likely that this is because it is a fitness enhancing
trait overall; at least for inclusive fitness. However, that doesnt mean
people who act altruistically are being cynical. That would be a kind of
egoism, but I think we are disposed to behave in certain ways because it
is a species typical behaviour due to past selection, not future
expectation.
One might choose this behaviour because one wants one's children to be
in a nice society. That is not, genetically speaking, altruistic.
Ernest Major
<bfada2bb-8b2d-4ddc...@41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Nick
Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 13 July, 12:07, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <d4d019ef-a97d-4cc5-9c35-71eed6f8f...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Nick
>> Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> >> Google tells me that in the human genome a centimorgan corresponds to
>> >> 1,000,000 base pairs. If I understand the implications correctly that
>> >> implies about 60 crossings over per diploid genome.
>>
>> >plenty I need to look up there! What do you measure as a percentage of
>> >a Welshman? "He's as musical as a centimorgan".
>
>I was just being facetious. I intended to look it up.
>
>> A centimorgan is the distance between loci on chromosomes such that
>> there is a 1% chance of crossing over between the loci during meiosis.
>> As the recombination frequency is not fixed along and between
>> chromosomes this is not strictly a physical distance, but on average, if
>> the source I found was accurate, a centimorgan corresponds to about
>> 1,000,000 base pairs.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimorgan
>>
>> From these figures we can produce an estimate of how many different
>> chunks of chromosome go to make up an average human haploid genome. I
>> haven't yet deduced how to calculate this estimate,
>
>count how may BP's in [the genome(?)] [a chromosome?] and divide by a
>million?
Not quite. In the absence of recombination a chromsome pair consists of
one chunk - you get one copy or the other. Assume that crossing over
occurs once in a chromosome pair. If crossing over always occurred at
the same point then that would be two chunks - you get one copy or the
other upstream of the crossover point (IIRC, chiasma, pl. chiasmata, is
the technical term), and one copy or the other downstream of the
crossover point. But crossing over doesn't occur at the same point, so
instead there are three chunks - upstream of the upstream one,
downstream of the downstream one, and between the two. I think that the
number of chunks is one more than the number of crossing over points in
the chromosome.
One problem is that the number of two loci 100 centimorgans apart don't
have a 100% chance of recombining between them - instead it's 1-
0.99^100, which is roughly 63.4%. I haven't yet worked out how to
compensate for this.
If you assume that the number of crossing over points is the length of
the genome in centimorgans divided by 100, then the number of chunks is
110 (6.4 x 10^9 / 10^6 / 10^2 + 46).
>
>
>> but my finger in the
>> air guess is that its about 100.
>
>there are about 100 chunks of DNA? Rather than the 46 we were playing
>with earlier.
I'd switched to haploid genomes. For a diploid genome that would make
200. But my argument about suggests that I was too generous.
>
>
>> That makes the peak of degree of
>> similarity rather narrower (British understatement) than in the absence
>> of recombination. (You've already agreed that in the absence of
>> recombination that the peak is rather broad.)
>
>um I make the 50:50 match about 8%. And the 40-60% match about 95%
>But I may have misunderstood you.
We had agreed that for 46 chunks it was 11.7% and 85%, which is what I
was describing as rather broad. I presume the above figures are for 100
chunks, which is somewhat narrower. But I was thinking in terms of 200
chunks (see above).
>
>Thanks!
>
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Nashton
> On 13 July, 11:26, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> On 7/12/10 10:57 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
>>> Atheists, like *all other primates* are social animals and thus are
>>> subjected to the *biological* constraints of being so. We do ethical
>>> behaviours because that's what primates, and especially apes, do. It is
>>> constitutive.
>>
>> Ethical behavior cannot be ascribed to primates. I don't care who you
>> are or how many degrees in philosophy you've amassed, it just cannot be
>> done. You, of all people ought to know this.
>
> it's pretty clear chimps understand things like fairness
Really? How would you know this? And how is this "ethical" behavior?
>
>
>>> So if one adopts as part of one's atheism a philosophical egoism, it
>>> pays to note that even the chimps, who really do behave as rational
>>> egoists in pairwise prisoners dilemmas, enforce behaviour norms and
>>> standards of fairness subject to the power structures of their troop
>>> (higher status individuals always get the better share if all are
>>> informed). Assuming they are atheists, that shows that atheists are
>>> always norm-driven.
>>
>> Assuming chimps are atheists?
>> Aren't we anthropomorphizing a tad, here?
>
> seems a fair default position to me. Isn't religion one of those
>
> "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person
> could believe in them." -- George Orwell
?
>>> But humans are slightly eusocial: we err about 5-10% in the direction of
>>> altruistic behaviour even when there is no expectation of recirprocity,
>>> which suggests that there has been some group selection for moral
>>> behaviour in our shared past, just as Darwin suggested in the Descent.
>>
>> Genetic determinism?
>> Isn't this rejected by most in the field of genetics?
>
> I don't see him saying "genetic determinism" in there.
Does he have to?
>
> John, If I'm nice to someone with no expection of direct reward, but I
> act as I do only because I prefer to live in a society that is mostly
> composed of similarly nice people, am I acting altruistically?
How do you get to choose this society and where is it?
As for the altruism, I doubt it has any basis in genes.
>
Steven L.
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:09ec141f-2fdf-442e...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 26, 7:27 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > When IDers set out to fool a new audience they first pretend that they
> > have a new science and that Darwinists are closed-minded to it.
> > Sometimes they don t even wait for Darwinists to correct them, and
> > admit up front that their real problem with evolution is that they
> > think it s atheistic. When they are reminded that there are many
> > theistic evolutionists IDers dismiss them as accomodationists.
> >
> > IDers do not like to talk about TEs, but if you dig deeper you ll find
> > that IDers consider TEs the worst of the worst. IDers whining about
> > accomodationists is in fact a pathetic example of the pot calling
> > the kettle black, because:
> >
> > OECs consider IDers accommodationists for not explicitly denying
> > common descent.
> >
> > YECs consider OECs accommodationists for conceding an old Earth.
> >
> > Geocentrists consider YECs accommodationists for conceding that the
> > Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
> >
> > Flat-Earthers consider Geocentrists accommodationists for conceding a
> > spherical Earth.
> >
> > If accommodation is such a bad thing, the Flat-Earthers theory must
> > be the correct one. ;-)
>
> Yo! What happened to my quotes? I never use the word "Darwinist(s)"
> without them.
Accommodationists are found on the other side of this argument as well.
P.Z. Myers and Jerry Coyne consider someone like Ken Miller, who fully
accepts the ToE yet believes in God as the creator of the Universe, as
"accommodationists."
So to continue on with your argument: If accommodation is such a bad
thing, then the only two choices we have are between Flat Earth
creationists and atheists who secretly wish they were computerized
androids like Data from Star Trek, acting on pure reason and devoid of
anything that smacks of "non-rationality".
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3133129a-8222-4299...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 27, 2:28 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:52:45 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > >On Sat 6-26 14:06, Will in New Haven wrote:
> > >> On Jun 26, 11:30 am, "Kalkidas"<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >>> "Frank J"<f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >>>news:3ecbfe39-23b0-49c6...@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >>>> When IDers set out to fool a new audience
> >
> > >>> k00k-a-d00dle-d00...!
> >
> > >>> [snip PMS inspired conspiracy theory rantings]
> >
> > >> You are a complete and utter ass. You _deserve_ to have a planet with
> > >> one superpower, the U.S. run by fanatical Christians, who would fry
> > >> your ugly butt. They _pretend_ to have respect for your rantings but
> > >> you are, in their view, a pagan and an enemy. Unlike secularists and
> > >> most other Christians, they would eventually kill you.
> >
> > >> --
> > >> Will in New Haven
> >
> > >Those who profit from war are perfectly willing to donate to religious
> > >causes and candidate who exploit the believers. The profiteers know that
> > >it is easy to convince fundamentalists that war is God's way of
> > >punishing the evil doers. It happens in all nations with majority
> > >fundamentalist populations but, unfortunately, in my country, the USA,
> > >we have the technology to kill vast numbers of people and enough
> > >fundamentalists to ensure that we do so.
> >
> > Not quite true. Most of the Christians in the current Republican
> > coalition have an uncomfortable relationship with both the military
> > and the big business Republicans. Some of the big business Republicans
> > are defense contractors, so there's some overlap, but on the whole the
> > big business Republicans aren't big fans of war, though they do
> > tolerate it when their interests are threatened.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The Vietnam-era stereotypes (Archie Bunker vs. Mike Stivic) are
> definitely changing, if reality ever was that close to the stereotype.
Conservative journals like National Review and even The Weekly Standard
(which was a strong supporter of the Iraq War) are now coming out for
cutting the military budget as part of an overall plan to reduce the
Federal deficit. War has stopped being fun for us right-wingers when it
devolved into nation-building exercises reminiscent of what the British
Empire used to do in centuries past.
And I'm sure that among large companies, Microsoft is opposed to war and
gains little from war. Remember that with globalization, many of
today's American companies are multinational (like large companies all
over the world). A war in some part of the world might mean the
destruction of that company's business there.
The only companies that have a vested interest in war are the military
contractors and the think-tanks that the military employs. But the huge
growth of the commercial high-tech market (which began with the
invention of the silicon chip) has made that sector of the U.S. economy
much less important than it was in, say, 1960.
-- Steven L.
Nick Keighley
> On 7/13/10 8:49 AM, NickKeighleywrote:
> > On 13 July, 11:26, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> On 7/12/10 10:57 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> >>> Atheists, like *all other primates* are social animals and thus are
> >>> subjected to the *biological* constraints of being so. We do ethical
> >>> behaviours because that's what primates, and especially apes, do. It is
> >>> constitutive.
>
> >> Ethical behavior cannot be ascribed to primates. I don't care who you
> >> are or how many degrees in philosophy you've amassed, it just cannot be
> >> done. You, of all people ought to know this.
>
> > it's pretty clear chimps understand things like fairness
>
> Really? How would you know this?
people have observed chimp behaviour. Jane Goodall?
> And how is this "ethical" behavior?
what *is* ethical behaviour then? I thought ethical behaviour was
treating people fairly.
> >>> So if one adopts as part of one's atheism a philosophical egoism, it
> >>> pays to note that even the chimps, who really do behave as rational
> >>> egoists in pairwise prisoners dilemmas, enforce behaviour norms and
> >>> standards of fairness subject to the power structures of their troop
> >>> (higher status individuals always get the better share if all are
> >>> informed). Assuming they are atheists, that shows that atheists are
> >>> always norm-driven.
>
> >> Assuming chimps are atheists?
> >> Aren't we anthropomorphizing a tad, here?
weird isn't it. You're happy to anthropomorphise by assuming chimps
have religion but you can't conceive of them having ethics. Do chimps
believe in christ?
> > seems a fair default position to me. Isn't religion one of those
>
> > "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person
> > could believe in them." -- George Orwell
>
> ?
yes? You had a question? I'd been thinking of a paraphrase
"There are some concepts so wrong that only a very intelligent species
could invent them."
is that clearer?
> >>> But humans are slightly eusocial: we err about 5-10% in the direction of
> >>> altruistic behaviour even when there is no expectation of recirprocity,
> >>> which suggests that there has been some group selection for moral
> >>> behaviour in our shared past, just as Darwin suggested in the Descent.
>
> >> Genetic determinism?
> >> Isn't this rejected by most in the field of genetics?
>
> > I don't see him saying "genetic determinism" in there.
>
> Does he have to?
yes. Or you're going to have to reduce your $GNOMICNESS value. A lot.
> > John, If I'm nice to someone with no expection of direct reward, but I
> > act as I do only because I prefer to live in a society that is mostly
> > composed of similarly nice people, am I acting altruistically?
>
> How do you get to choose this society and where is it?
I walk out the door and there are people. We live in the same town and
have a shared culture. I'd call that a society. I opened a door for a
man with a heavy parcel. What reward could I expect? But hope if I
need a little help I might get it. [by my estimates I'm owed several
hundred door openings, £94.53 in taxi fares and many beers]
> As for the altruism, I doubt it has any basis in genes.
you think iterated prisoners dilemma has no genetic basis? We freely
choose? (Or was that another nutter^W long-time TO poster?)
Nick Keighley
> >On 13 July, 12:07, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <d4d019ef-a97d-4cc5-9c35-71eed6f8f...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Nick
> >>Keighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >> Google tells me that in the human genome a centimorgan corresponds to
> >> >> 1,000,000 base pairs. If I understand the implications correctly that
> >> >> implies about 60 crossings over per diploid genome.
<snip>
> >with earlier[?]
>
> I'd switched to haploid genomes. For a diploid genome that would make
> 200. But my argument about suggests that I was too generous.
>
> >> That makes the peak of degree of
> >> similarity rather narrower (British understatement) than in the absence
> >> of recombination. (You've already agreed that in the absence of
> >> recombination that the peak is rather broad.)
>
> >um I make the 50:50 match about 8%. And the 40-60% match about 95%
> >But I may have misunderstood you.
>
> We had agreed that for 46 chunks it was 11.7% and 85%, which is what I
> was describing as rather broad. I presume the above figures are for 100
> chunks, which is somewhat narrower.
it was
> But I was thinking in terms of 200
> chunks (see above).
dammit! You knew 200 chunks would blow up my program! 200! is
apparently +INF
<download stuff>
with 200 chunks
50% share has a 6% probability
40-60% share 99.4%
45-55% share 84%
the code is pretty naive so don't use those numbers for anything
important
Nashton
I assumed chimps that chimps are religious?
*WHERE*?
>
>>> seems a fair default position to me. Isn't religion one of those
>>
>>> "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person
>>> could believe in them." -- George Orwell
>>
>> ?
>
> yes? You had a question? I'd been thinking of a paraphrase
>
> "There are some concepts so wrong that only a very intelligent species
> could invent them."
>
> is that clearer?
What are you talking about?
>
>
>>>>> But humans are slightly eusocial: we err about 5-10% in the direction of
>>>>> altruistic behaviour even when there is no expectation of recirprocity,
>>>>> which suggests that there has been some group selection for moral
>>>>> behaviour in our shared past, just as Darwin suggested in the Descent.
>>
>>>> Genetic determinism?
>>>> Isn't this rejected by most in the field of genetics?
>>
>>> I don't see him saying "genetic determinism" in there.
>>
>> Does he have to?
>
> yes. Or you're going to have to reduce your $GNOMICNESS value. A lot.
My what value?
>
>>> John, If I'm nice to someone with no expection of direct reward, but I
>>> act as I do only because I prefer to live in a society that is mostly
>>> composed of similarly nice people, am I acting altruistically?
>>
>> How do you get to choose this society and where is it?
>
> I walk out the door and there are people. We live in the same town and
> have a shared culture. I'd call that a society. I opened a door for a
> man with a heavy parcel. What reward could I expect? But hope if I
> need a little help I might get it. [by my estimates I'm owed several
> hundred door openings, £94.53 in taxi fares and many beers]
Please don't mention booze.
>
>> As for the altruism, I doubt it has any basis in genes.
>
> you think iterated prisoners dilemma has no genetic basis? We freely
> choose? (Or was that another nutter^W long-time TO poster?)
Humans choose, for sure.
That was a colossal waste of my time.
>
Nick Keighley
> On 7/14/10 7:31 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> > On 13 July, 13:58, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> On 7/13/10 8:49 AM, NickKeighleywrote:
> >>> On 13 July, 11:26, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/10 10:57 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> >>>>> Atheists, like *all other primates* are social animals and thus are
> >>>>> subjected to the *biological* constraints of being so. We do ethical
> >>>>> behaviours because that's what primates, and especially apes, do. It is
> >>>>> constitutive.
>
> >>>> Ethical behavior cannot be ascribed to primates. I don't care who you
> >>>> are or how many degrees in philosophy you've amassed, it just cannot be
> >>>> done. You, of all people ought to know this.
>
> >>> it's pretty clear chimps understand things like fairness
>
> >> Really? How would you know this?
>
> > people have observed chimp behaviour. Jane Goodall?
>
> >> And how is this "ethical" behavior?
>
> > what *is* ethical behaviour then? I thought ethical behaviour was
> > treating people fairly.
not harming them
> >>>>> So if one adopts as part of one's atheism a philosophical egoism, it
> >>>>> pays to note that even the chimps, who really do behave as rational
> >>>>> egoists in pairwise prisoners dilemmas, enforce behaviour norms and
> >>>>> standards of fairness subject to the power structures of their troop
> >>>>> (higher status individuals always get the better share if all are
> >>>>> informed). Assuming they are atheists, that shows that atheists are
> >>>>> always norm-driven.
>
> >>>> Assuming chimps are atheists?
> >>>> Aren't we anthropomorphizing a tad, here?
>
> > weird isn't it. You're happy to anthropomorphise by assuming chimps
> > have religion but you can't conceive of them having ethics. Do chimps
> > believe in christ?
>
> I assumed [<deleted>] that chimps are religious?
>
> *WHERE*?
well you were sure they weren't atheists so I guessed you thought they
had religion. Look "atheist" just means "doesn't believe in god(s)".
If chimps don't believe in god (that is, they are not religious) then
they are atheists. Easy huh?
> >>> seems a fair default position to me.
as I said here
> Isn't religion one of those
>
> >>> "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person
> >>> could believe in them." -- George Orwell
>
> >> ?
>
> > yes? You had a question? I'd been thinking of a paraphrase
>
> > "There are some concepts so wrong that only a very intelligent species
> > could invent them."
>
> > is that clearer?
>
> What are you talking about?
I'm having trouble thinking down to your level. The first time I
thought it was moderatly witty but the wit gets squeezed out of it
with each successive layer of translation.
Only something as smart (and as stupid) as humanity could invent
religion. Chimps aren't intelligent enough to do it (nor have they
split the atom or written any HTML code); they are also not dumb
enough to saddle themselves with such a collossal waste of time,
energy and spirit.
> >>>>> But humans are slightly eusocial: we err about 5-10% in the direction of
> >>>>> altruistic behaviour even when there is no expectation of recirprocity,
> >>>>> which suggests that there has been some group selection for moral
> >>>>> behaviour in our shared past, just as Darwin suggested in the Descent.
>
> >>>> Genetic determinism?
> >>>> Isn't this rejected by most in the field of genetics?
>
> >>> I don't see him saying "genetic determinism" in there.
>
> >> Does he have to?
>
> > yes. Or you're going to have to reduce your $GNOMICNESS value. A lot.
>
> My what value?
Gnomic \Gnom"ic\, Gnomical \Gnom"ic*al\, a. [Gr. ?, fr. ?: cf.
F. gnomique. See Gnome maxim.]
Sententious; uttering or containing maxims, or striking
detached thoughts; aphoristic.
[1913 Webster]
I was hinting you were being obscure
> >>> John, If I'm nice to someone with no expection of direct reward, but I
> >>> act as I do only because I prefer to live in a society that is mostly
> >>> composed of similarly nice people, am I acting altruistically?
>
> >> How do you get to choose this society and where is it?
>
> > I walk out the door and there are people. We live in the same town and
> > have a shared culture. I'd call that a society. I opened a door for a
> > man with a heavy parcel. What reward could I expect? But hope if I
> > need a little help I might get it. [by my estimates I'm owed several
> > hundred door openings, Ł94.53 in taxi fares and many beers]
>
> Please don't mention booze.
plus two house moves and a garden clearance, hey! putting up a garden
shed
> >> As for the altruism, I doubt it has any basis in genes.
>
> > you think iterated prisoners dilemma has no genetic basis? We freely
> > choose? (Or was that another nutter^W long-time TO poster?)
>
> Humans choose, for sure.
>
> That was a colossal waste of my time.
well you don't *have* to answer...
johnbee
< "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1jll9h6.1372jojgpqdqdN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
One might choose this behaviour because one wants one's children to be
in a nice society. That is not, genetically speaking, altruistic. >
Nice evasion of the point with that 'might'.
In fact it entirely depends upon a definition of altruism. If you are
allowed to say that a person who acts apparently altruistically is not
actually being altruistic if, in your own opinion they gain anything at all,
even if it is merely the knowledge that they have acted ethically, then that
is not true altruism, then surely you are saying that altruism does not in
fact exist. I am afraid that looks exactly as though you don't want it to
exist so you define it out of existence.
On British TV there is a programme called The Apprentice, where people
compete doing various business tasks and if successful one of them gets a
high paying job working for a multi-millionaire's company. It is good fun.
One entrant, a woman who had just gained a first in physics but had not
decided what sort of career she wanted, refused to take part in a task which
involved her deliberately enticing children to persuade their mothers to buy
sweets and toys. She was thrown off the show, the millionaire said that she
was unsuitable for a business career. In the summary after she left, she
said that obviously business was unsuitable for her and that had helped her
in her decision on what sort of work she would do.
Now anyone can smugly imagine that she had selfish motives for doing what
she did. However, any reasonable definition of altruism would most
certainly include her action as altruistic. A word is needed for that type
of action, because there are quite a large number of such people, and
altruism might as well continue to be that word.
John S. Wilkins
> < "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1jll9h6.1372jojgpqdqdN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>
> One might choose this behaviour because one wants one's children to be
> in a nice society. That is not, genetically speaking, altruistic. >
>
> Nice evasion of the point with that 'might'.
Evasion of what, exactly?
>
> In fact it entirely depends upon a definition of altruism. If you are
> allowed to say that a person who acts apparently altruistically is not
> actually being altruistic if, in your own opinion they gain anything at all,
> even if it is merely the knowledge that they have acted ethically, then that
> is not true altruism, then surely you are saying that altruism does not in
> fact exist. I am afraid that looks exactly as though you don't want it to
> exist so you define it out of existence.
You'd be wrong. The work I am aware of shows that humans have a
"eusocial bias" overall such that some altruistic - in the psychological
or moral sense - behaviours exist (unlike chimps, who are rational
egoists). It's a small effect but real.
But you have to distinguish between *genetic* altruism, which does not
exist, and the sociopsychological altruism, which does. This eusocial
bias is the result of "selfish" genetic selection (or perhaps drift, but
I find that hard to justify). In short, gentic selfishness, about which
more in a bit, is the cause of sociopsychological altruism.
Genetic selfishness is little more than a colourful way of saying that
the mathematics of genetic evolution under selection model genes as if
they were rational egoists in a perfect game of iterated prisoner's
dilemmas. There is a great disconnect between genetic and the other kind
of altruism; and one does not exist, the other does.
>
> On British TV there is a programme called The Apprentice, where people
> compete doing various business tasks and if successful one of them gets a
> high paying job working for a multi-millionaire's company. It is good fun.
>
> One entrant, a woman who had just gained a first in physics but had not
> decided what sort of career she wanted, refused to take part in a task which
> involved her deliberately enticing children to persuade their mothers to buy
> sweets and toys. She was thrown off the show, the millionaire said that she
> was unsuitable for a business career. In the summary after she left, she
> said that obviously business was unsuitable for her and that had helped her
> in her decision on what sort of work she would do.
>
> Now anyone can smugly imagine that she had selfish motives for doing what
> she did. However, any reasonable definition of altruism would most
> certainly include her action as altruistic. A word is needed for that type
> of action, because there are quite a large number of such people, and
> altruism might as well continue to be that word.