a question about Inherit the Wind
Michael
Spencer Tracy. I must say the film did a good job in exposing religious
bigottry. The character of the sarcastic reporter Hornbeck (modelled on
Mencken), although given a perhaps deserved rebuke at the end of the play,
provided a few good laughs. Creationism is nonsense as we all know, and i
could not agree with that point of view more. Even so, I had the feeling
that this was more a case of "important subjects under debate" than a piece
of great literature or drama. Thematically the play reads like a 20'th
century Darwinian update of Brecht's Life of Galileo, but i am bit unsure
whether it is just as good a play.
I know there are 3 good versions of the play, all with good casts. Do know
if there's any noticable difference between these versions?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I just saw Inherit the Wind, the 1962 movie about the Scopes trial starring
>Spencer Tracy. I must say the film did a good job in exposing religious
>bigottry. The character of the sarcastic reporter Hornbeck (modelled on
>Mencken), although given a perhaps deserved rebuke at the end of the play,
>provided a few good laughs. Creationism is nonsense as we all know, and i
>could not agree with that point of view more. Even so, I had the feeling
>that this was more a case of "important subjects under debate" than a piece
>of great literature or drama. Thematically the play reads like a 20'th
>century Darwinian update of Brecht's Life of Galileo, but i am bit unsure
>whether it is just as good a play.
It would be interesting to see how a movie critic who was also a
creationist reviewed the movie.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Stone me
"Michael" <michae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gcacu6$i0n$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> ..more a case of "important subjects under debate" than a piece of great
> literature or drama.
If you say so, then so it must be.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it Is truly a great piece of
drama, and two
great performances from two very worthy actors. March especially, attracts
some
sympathy from me, in spite of his part taking a view I have never shared,
and his
particular assumption of Righteousness, exposed by his opponent in Court, is
particularly disgusting. (Perhaps I recognise some of my own failings there)
Have another look.
Stone me.
Marv Soloff
comment on the Lawrence and Lee play. I would have to say, in the Kramer
film that it owes nothing to Brecht's "Galileo" - though the struggle
for truth in science is similar. In my opinion, Kramer and his talented
cast - especially Gene Kelly and Florence Eldridge (Mrs. Brady) - make a
remarkably captivating film.
Marv
Michael
similar, as you said. I just want to say to the earlier posting asking what
a creationist thinks of the play. I would say that is pretty obvious. I
found the bible people to very horribly portrayed in the film, the priest
who doesn't love his daughter and the politician who can't answer a few
questions about the truth. There is a slight attempt at compriomise towards
the of the film as Horbeck is rebuked. The last scene shows Spencer Tracy
picking up both the bible and The Origin of the Species and walking out. It
is strange, but even though i have some background in biology, I found the
analysis of the bible loonatics slightly one-dimensional. I thought the
death of the bible prosecutor in fire and brimestone was uncessasary and a
bit over the top. I think this is due to the failure of the play, and not to
the fact that i disagree with the argument presented in it. But i have
changed my mind about things before . . . . so maybe it will grow on me.
My question did not relate to stage productions, but rather to the 3 other
movie versions of the play i heard existed, which featured Kirk Douglas,
Jason Robart and Jack lemmon. I was curiious as to whether they brought
someting different to their parts.
"Marv Soloff" <mso...@verizon.net> skrev i melding
news:tB3Gk.814$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
David Oberman
>I have never seen any stage production of "Inherit The Wind" so I cannot
>comment on the Lawrence and Lee play. I would have to say, in the Kramer
>film that it owes nothing to Brecht's "Galileo" - though the struggle
>for truth in science is similar.
Would you say that it shares something of the final-analysis critique
of science of Shaw's "The Doctor's Dilemma"?
____
I'd wake up in the morning with the sunshine in my eyes
And the music of the canyon would begin
And I'd soar just like an eagle through the blue Montana skies
Like a glider on the wind
There were times when I was hungry, times I missed a friend
But sleep would hush it over
There were times the rain would wake me & all my dreams would end
But a dream can't last forever
-- "Morning Rider on the Road" (Partridge Family)
Michael
with you. I have just ordered it online. I just want to say that Shaw, as a
socialist and a supporter of eugenics (in the preface to man and superman),
had some flaws when it came to matters like this. He was in fact rebuked by
Pearson, the eugenecist, for being too extreme in his speeches to the
eugenics society. I am a bit interested in these things, so i will get hold
of the A. Asquith movie. (today i am watching The Fugitive Kind with Brando)
"David Oberman" <dobe...@socal.rr.com> skrev i melding
news:uajhe4tg34s3uopbv...@4ax.com...
moviePig
Although I read the play long ago, I don't recall registering any
radical departures from the movie. Meanwhile, though, note that
Drummond/Tracy, at most, vanquished 'literalism' and not 'creationism'.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Jim Beaver
>
> My question did not relate to stage productions, but rather to the 3 other
> movie versions of the play i heard existed, which featured Kirk Douglas,
> Jason Robart and Jack lemmon. I was curiious as to whether they brought
> someting different to their parts.
There are four filmed versions I'm aware of. The best known is the 1960
feature film with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. The remainder were made
for television. There was a 1965 version with Melvyn Douglas and Ed Begley,
a 1988 version with Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards Jr., and a 1999 version
with George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon. As I recall, they are all quite
faithful to the play. It's inevitable that different actors would bring
different qualities to their roles. But I don't recall any startlingly
different approaches. The material suggests quite clearly how it ought to
be played.
A very good, informative, and provocative play....not great drama in the
true sense of the word "great," but an excellent example of its type.
My dad was a minister with whom I had many, um, discussions about
creationism and literalism. I believe INHERIT THE WIND was one of his
favorite films. We certainly watched it every time it came on, it seemed.
Jim Beaver
Marv Soloff
Not familiar with this piece of GBS. A notable lapse in my education.
Marv
Magnus, Robot Fighter
wrote:
And remember he carries the books side by side at the end.
moviePig
Yin and yang... light and dark... stuff and nonsense...
Wonder how Clarence Darrow might've felt about that shot. ("I do not
believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose." - C.D.)
David Oberman
>Yin and yang... light and dark... stuff and nonsense...
The energy in any body of mass is equal to its mass times the square
of the speed of light. This is an ENORMOUS number. All mass has energy
. . . & all energy has mass. Every second, the Earth is hit by 4.5
pounds of sunlight. E = mc^2
Tom Sutpen
> My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it Is truly a great piece of
> drama, and two
> great performances from two very worthy actors. March especially, attracts
> some
> sympathy from me, in spite of his part taking a view I have never shared,
> and his
> particular assumption of Righteousness, exposed by his opponent in Court, is
> particularly disgusting. (Perhaps I recognise some of my own failings there)
*****
It's a complete distortion of William Jennings Bryan and his true
intent in participating in the prosecution of that case. Bryan was
less motivated by a sense of violation to Biblical teaching (he was no
literalist when it came to the Bible; his testimony in that trial,
largely triumphant, made it clear) than he was by the sinister
underpinnings of the particular textbook foisted on Daton, Tennessee's
schoolkids: essentially a proto-Nazi tract entitled 'Civic Biology'
that used Darwin's theory as evidence of the supremacy of the White
race over all lower orders (with every foul implication attendant).
This is just one of the ways in which 'Inherit the Wind', either as
play or movie, is a gross distortion of what the Scopes circus was
about. Understandbale, though. I mean, a fairy tale of religious
bigotry in a struggle against the forces of enlightenment is much
easier to swallow than a saga of religious bigotry opposing racial
bigotry. More nuance there than audiences could handle, then and now.
Tom Sutpen
Derek Janssen
>
> It's a complete distortion of William Jennings Bryan and his true
> intent in participating in the prosecution of that case. Bryan was
> less motivated by a sense of violation to Biblical teaching (he was no
> literalist when it came to the Bible; his testimony in that trial,
> largely triumphant, made it clear) than he was by the sinister
> underpinnings of the particular textbook foisted on Daton, Tennessee's
> schoolkids: essentially a proto-Nazi tract entitled 'Civic Biology'
> that used Darwin's theory as evidence of the supremacy of the White
> race over all lower orders (with every foul implication attendant).
>
> This is just one of the ways in which 'Inherit the Wind', either as
> play or movie, is a gross distortion of what the Scopes circus was
> about. Understandbale, though. I mean, a fairy tale of religious
> bigotry in a struggle against the forces of enlightenment is much
> easier to swallow than a saga of religious bigotry opposing racial
> bigotry. More nuance there than audiences could handle, then and now.
Also, Scopes wasn't the poor "innocent" everyman Darrin Stevens he was
portrayed in the play/movie, he was one of a group of activist teachers
who *intended* to push the issue to court by direct violation--
The stage version was thematically correct, however, in that the
guilty-verdict punishment was a $100 fine (in 1925 dollars), leaving
most of the Bryan supporters with the false-hype anti-climax of "Wait,
you mean, no public hanging and permanent Constitutional amendment?... :( "
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Magnus, Robot Fighter
<eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>Tom Sutpen wrote:
>>
>> It's a complete distortion of William Jennings Bryan and his true
>> intent in participating in the prosecution of that case. Bryan was
>> less motivated by a sense of violation to Biblical teaching (he was no
>> literalist when it came to the Bible; his testimony in that trial,
>> largely triumphant, made it clear) than he was by the sinister
>> underpinnings of the particular textbook foisted on Daton, Tennessee's
>> schoolkids: essentially a proto-Nazi tract entitled 'Civic Biology'
>> that used Darwin's theory as evidence of the supremacy of the White
>> race over all lower orders (with every foul implication attendant).
>>
>> This is just one of the ways in which 'Inherit the Wind', either as
>> play or movie, is a gross distortion of what the Scopes circus was
>> about. Understandbale, though. I mean, a fairy tale of religious
>> bigotry in a struggle against the forces of enlightenment is much
>> easier to swallow than a saga of religious bigotry opposing racial
>> bigotry. More nuance there than audiences could handle, then and now.
>
>Also, Scopes wasn't the poor "innocent" everyman Darrin Stevens he was
>portrayed in the play/movie, he was one of a group of activist teachers
>who *intended* to push the issue to court by direct violation--
>
Oh...now...next you'll be telling me sweet Rosa Parks wasn't just some
old woman who was tired and wanted to sit down.
Okierazorbacker
> I just saw Inherit the Wind, the 1962 movie about the Scopes trial starring
> Spencer Tracy. I must say the film did a good job in exposing religious
> bigottry. The character of the sarcastic reporter Hornbeck (modelled on
> Mencken), although given a perhaps deserved rebuke at the end of the play,
> provided a few good laughs. Creationism is nonsense as we all know,
What a sad, sad statement. It boggles my mind that otherwise rational
beings can actually believe that they accidentally evolved from ooze
rather than were intelligently created by the most awesome Engineer
imaginable. Talk about nonsense.
Also the film/play are nonsense. Wildly distorted by those with an ax
to grind, taking the facts of a court case and turning them into
basically a sermon for Darwinism. Pathetic.
Tom Sutpen
> >> This is just one of the ways in which 'Inherit the Wind', either as
> >> play or movie, is a gross distortion of what the Scopes circus was
> >> about. Understandbale, though. I mean, a fairy tale of religious
> >> bigotry in a struggle against the forces of enlightenment is much
> >> easier to swallow than a saga of religious bigotry opposing racial
> >> bigotry. More nuance there than audiences could handle, then and now.
>
> >Also, Scopes wasn't the poor "innocent" everyman Darrin Stevens he was
> >portrayed in the play/movie, he was one of a group of activist teachers
> >who *intended* to push the issue to court by direct violation--
>
> Oh...now...next you'll be telling me sweet Rosa Parks wasn't just some
> old woman who was tired and wanted to sit down.
*****
Uhhhhhh . . .
Let's just say it wasn't a complete coincidence that a photographer
was on hand when she was booked.
And she was only 42 when she was arrested. If that's old then . . . so
am I (gulp).
Tom Sutpen
Michael
convince you, other than the fact that there is hardly a biologist at any
university on earth that believes in creationism. There are some other ways
of supporting a religious view of biology though, as long as you accept
natural selection and Darwin. I agree with you the film has some shortages,
although some Christians tend to like a movies that reflect on their issues
as such films are few in number. When i was a teacher in a very religious
part of my own country, the head teacher of the classes in religion told me
that her favorite movie was Life of Brian. That film, she said, had some
small gems of truth in it, at the same time as it made her laugh at hew own
shortcomings. I don't know if that is possible in the case of Inherit the
Wind though.
"Okierazorbacker" <okieraz...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:a10f2a48-b7a0-492b...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Tom Sutpen
> > This is just one of the ways in which 'Inherit the Wind', either as
> > play or movie, is a gross distortion of what the Scopes circus was
> > about. Understandbale, though. I mean, a fairy tale of religious
> > bigotry in a struggle against the forces of enlightenment is much
> > easier to swallow than a saga of religious bigotry opposing racial
> > bigotry. More nuance there than audiences could handle, then and now.
>
> Also, Scopes wasn't the poor "innocent" everyman Darrin Stevens he was
> portrayed in the play/movie, he was one of a group of activist teachers
> who *intended* to push the issue to court by direct violation--
*****
It was very strange how that case came about. From my reading, the
whole thing was orchestrated by the ACLU, whose intention was to
challenge the statute, and local businessmen in Dayton who were merely
eager for all the publicity the city would receive (and they received
a boatload). With celebrity lawyers and all, Barnum & Bailey couldn't
have planned that circus better.
But in a sense it really was a complicated legal matter. Biology
classes were required by law to instruct the chillens from this racist
nightmare of a Science book (in Tennessee? Gee, I wonder why . . . ),
of which the subject of evolution constituted just one chapter, while
the Butler Act prohibited teaching Darwin's theory in public schools
entirely. There's also the question of whether John Scopes actually
taught evolution in his classes the first place (he denied it as soon
as the case was over), but if 'Inherit' had gone into those
labyrinthine depths it would have left people's heads spinning.
> The stage version was thematically correct, however, in that the
> guilty-verdict punishment was a $100 fine (in 1925 dollars), leaving
> most of the Bryan supporters with the false-hype anti-climax of "Wait,
> you mean, no public hanging and permanent Constitutional amendment?... :( "
*****
Not to nitpick (honestly), but while the jury recommended a fine of
$100, the judge raised it to $500 at sentencing, thereby throwing a
monkey-wrench (pun intended) in the ACLU's strategy. Tennessee law
required that fines be determined by the jury, not the judge, and this
made it easy for the apellate court to overturn the conviction on what
was a bald technicality, while leaving the matter of the Butler Act's
constitutionality unadressed. I think it remained on the books for
another 30-40 years; long after 'Inherit the Wind' closed on Broadway
and Stanley Kramer's career started to tank.
Tom Sutpen
David Oberman
>What a sad, sad statement. It boggles my mind that otherwise rational
>beings can actually believe that they accidentally evolved from ooze
>rather than were intelligently created by the most awesome Engineer
>imaginable.
Don't you mean the three most awesome Engineers imaginable?
tomcervo
The 1960 movie has March and Tracy in an actor's duel, constantly
trying to upstage one another. I think there's a scene with March
orating, while Tracy in the backround picks his nose.
Oh, and Claude Akins as the Reverend, because Lee Van Cleef was booked
elsewhere.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
mmm...well, I was being facetious, but I could have SWORN there was a
70's movie about Rosa Parks. Apparently though I'm thinking about The
Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman
tomcervo
> On Oct 5, 7:46�am, "Michael" <michaelwy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just saw Inherit the Wind, the 1962 movie about the Scopes trial starring
> > Spencer Tracy. I must say the film did a good job in exposing religious
> > bigottry. The character of the sarcastic reporter Hornbeck (modelled on
> > Mencken), although given a perhaps deserved rebuke at the end of the play,
> > provided a few good laughs. Creationism is nonsense as we all know,
>
> What a sad, sad statement. �It boggles my mind that otherwise rational
> beings can actually believe that they accidentally evolved from ooze
> rather than were intelligently created by the most awesome Engineer
Johnny Gray?
Casey Jones?
Marv Soloff
Gitta love that cxreationism. You and Sarah Palin all the way!
Marv
Okierazorbacker
> Are you a genuine creationist?
Yes. We are not extinct. ;-}
> I guess there' isn't much i could say to
> convince you, other than the fact that there is hardly a biologist at any
> university on earth that believes in creationism.
The fact that millions believe a lie does not make it true.
> There are some other ways
> of supporting a religious view of biology though, as long as you accept
> natural selection and Darwin.
The concept of natural selection is basic common sense, but it's one
thing to say that a herd of wildebeest will produce a certain number
of slightly less fit creatures who will become lion chow and therefore
the best traits will pass on to the next generation. It's an entirely
different thing to say that a one-cell organism eventually grew eyes,
a respiratory system, legs, a skeleton, etc. Ludicrous.
> I agree with you the film has some shortages,
> although some Christians tend to like a movies that reflect on their issues
> as such films are few in number. When i was a teacher in a very religious
> part of my own country, the head teacher of the classes in religion told me
> that her favorite movie was Life of Brian. That film, she said, had some
> small gems of truth in it, at the same time as it made her laugh at hew own
> shortcomings. I don't know if that is possible in the case of Inherit the
> Wind though.
>
I love "Life of Brian." The hubbub over that movie was a kneejerk
reaction; nothing in it is as sacreligious as was said at the time.
Jesus is presented quite well. It's the idiots around Him who are
lampooned. GREAT film.
OTOH "Inherit the Wind" is not a satire/farce/whatever-you-call-
Python. It lionized some very questionable characters, demonized a
decent man, and distorted the facts so wildly that those involved
should be ashamed of themselves. Now, that's not unique in the world
of film, but the problem is that successive generations may not look
into the facts of the case and understand the difference.
Tom Sutpen
> The 1960 movie has March and Tracy in an actor's duel, constantly
> trying to upstage one another. I think there's a scene with March
> orating, while Tracy in the backround picks his nose.
> Oh, and Claude Akins as the Reverend, because Lee Van Cleef was booked
> elsewhere.
*****
Naw. Pat Hingle was always the go-to actor for roles like that (at
least when R.G. Armstrong wasn't available).
Though I heard he once played the lead in The Scottish Play.
('Tomorra and tomorra and tomorra . . . ')
Tom Sutpen
wull
Yu'all have slipped from politics to religion.
Both of these subjects are better left alone.
It is difficult for me to believe that movie buffs, of old or new movies
would rather argue and insult about religion.
Most of you should find another news group to cast your insultingly rude
comments. And I am talking to both sides of the coins.
Wull
"Okierazorbacker" <okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5f6411d8-ff2d-48b0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Okierazorbacker
> There is no question about ITW.
> Yu'all have slipped from politics to religion.
> Both of these subjects are better left alone.
> It is difficult for me to believe that movie buffs, of old or new movies
> would rather argue and insult about religion.
> Most of you should find another news group to cast your insultingly rude
> comments. And I am talking to both sides of the coins.
>
another considers nonsense, it is challenged. That is the way of the
internet; that is its strength, and that is its weakness.
tomcervo
designer; knowing that some day you may have to explain to the parents
of a child with leukemia how it's all God's plan--or what kind of
being, supreme or otherwise, intentionally creates such a thing.
Okierazorbacker
It's called sin. It's not fashionable to use that word, but sin in
the world brought death into the world. It was not God's desire that
we choose it, but it was the choice of our ancestors and we live with
the results. And only a loving God would allow humanity the freedom
to choose; ask anyone whose parent is a real control freak.
Okierazorbacker
> comments. And I am talking to both sides of the coins.
>
person. I certainly will ridicule a bad idea, and the concept of
evolution as it is taught today is worthy of ridicule. If I've been
insulting or rude to any individual, that is my bad; please point it
out to me. I believe that people are made in the image of God, and
should be treated with respect....but I screw it up sometimes too, you
know.
Derek Janssen
> On Oct 5, 10:46 pm, tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>It does take a lot of courage to be a creationalist/intelligent
>>designer; knowing that some day you may have to explain to the parents
>>of a child with leukemia how it's all God's plan--or what kind of
>>being, supreme or otherwise, intentionally creates such a thing.
>
> It's called sin. It's not fashionable to use that word,
It's not accurate, either. (Unless you want to tell the kid it's *his
fault* he got it.)
And before MP and Alric chime in on #27 Out of the Old Book, the correct
answer is that we're also given the "choice" of developing a cure
ourselves, and/or even choosing to dealing with it in a mature and
philadelphic way to those around us, or even leading us into charity, if
we can't.
...IOW, theologically speaking, it's what we DO with what we get, and
whether we're perceptive enough to, that makes us Not Jerks. ^_^
Derek Janssen (like KG sez, just call me the resident Non-Psycho of the
roundtable discussions)
eja...@verizon.net
Magnus, Robot Fighter
<okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 5, 10:46 pm, tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com> wrote:
>> It does take a lot of courage to be a creationalist/intelligent
>> designer; knowing that some day you may have to explain to the parents
>> of a child with leukemia how it's all God's plan--or what kind of
>> being, supreme or otherwise, intentionally creates such a thing.
>
>It's called sin.
Annnnnd straight into the looney bin.
I guess *I'M* the only one around who believes ID is quite possible
without trying to drag in God and ridiculous explanations for why bad
things happen to good people.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
wrote:
>On Oct 5, 7:27?pm, Okierazorbacker <okierazorbac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 7:46?am, "Michael" <michaelwy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I just saw Inherit the Wind, the 1962 movie about the Scopes trial starring
>> > Spencer Tracy. I must say the film did a good job in exposing religious
>> > bigottry. The character of the sarcastic reporter Hornbeck (modelled on
>> > Mencken), although given a perhaps deserved rebuke at the end of the play,
>> > provided a few good laughs. Creationism is nonsense as we all know,
>>
>> What a sad, sad statement. ?It boggles my mind that otherwise rational
>> beings can actually believe that they accidentally evolved from ooze
>> rather than were intelligently created by the most awesome Engineer
>> imaginable. ?
>
>Johnny Gray?
>Casey Jones?
Montgomery Scott?
Okierazorbacker
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:05:33 -0700 (PDT), Okierazorbacker
>
>
>
> Annnnnd straight into the looney bin.
Hm. THERE'S the "insulting" the other guy was talking about. If you
disagree, ridicule the one who disagrees with you. That's called an
ad hominem argument, and it ain't kosher under any rules of debate
unless you're running for office.
>
> I guess *I'M* the only one around who believes ID is quite possible
> without trying to drag in God and ridiculous explanations for why bad
> things happen to good people.
This I gotta hear. 1) How could ID be possible without Someone to
design, and 2) How is my understanding ridiculous?
Richard Schultz
:> Creationism is nonsense as we all know,
: What a sad, sad statement. It boggles my mind that otherwise rational
: beings can actually believe that they accidentally evolved from ooze
: rather than were intelligently created by the most awesome Engineer
: imaginable. Talk about nonsense.
Every test that we can perform indicates that the Earth is several billion
years old, and that the types of life present on the planet have changed
over that time. In other words, evolution is a *fact*. Some proposed
mechanisms for evolution (e.g. evolution by natural selection) can be tested
experimentally. Intelligent Design cannot be. Even if it's true, it's
not science. Anyone who believes that the earth is 6000 years old is
believing in nonsense.
Next, I suppose, you'll be telling us that there's no such thing as gravity
because, after all, General Relativity is "only a theory."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Richard Schultz
: The concept of natural selection is basic common sense, but it's one
: thing to say that a herd of wildebeest will produce a certain number
: of slightly less fit creatures who will become lion chow and therefore
: the best traits will pass on to the next generation. It's an entirely
: different thing to say that a one-cell organism eventually grew eyes,
: a respiratory system, legs, a skeleton, etc. Ludicrous.
Luckily for the rest of us, the way the world works does not depend on
ignoramuses do and do not find ludicrous.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Richard Schultz
Are you telling me that my family's history of heart disease arose because
my ancestors were sinners? Was my grandfather (who was the only one of
his generation who did not suffer from heart disease) less of a sinner than
his brothers (all of whom had heart attacks while in their early 60's)?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
: Hm. THERE'S the "insulting" the other guy was talking about. If you
: disagree, ridicule the one who disagrees with you. That's called an
: ad hominem argument,
Actually, strictly speaking, it is not, even though among people whose
ignorance extends to Latin it is frequently used to mean that.
Richard Schultz
: I certainly will ridicule a bad idea, and the concept of
: evolution as it is taught today is worthy of ridicule.
Anyone who thinks that is at best a complete ignoramus. Unless, of course,
you mean that evolution is not taught in sufficient detail in high school
biology in most places in the U.S.
Richard Schultz
: And before MP and Alric chime in on #27 Out of the Old Book, the correct
: answer is that we're also given the "choice" of developing a cure
: ourselves, and/or even choosing to dealing with it in a mature and
: philadelphic way to those around us, or even leading us into charity, if
: we can't.
As the medieval philosopher Maimonides (whose day job was being a physician)
recognized more than 800 years ago.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
wull
This paragraph is exceedingly rude and insulting to many people. You are
obviously not a scientist. If people are to be treated with respect you
would not make your many outlandish, boorish and unscientific statements
regardless of how you think or feel.
Someone, maybe it was you made a comment about no proven scientific fact
concerning the theory of Evolution or Darwin's theory. It is a definite
fact. The religious scientists who do not deny the path that led to what is
known as mankind add a little to align their scientific knowledge with the
creation theory by believing that when the supreme being (or whatever the
entity is) arrived at the goal of "man" as he intended it, caused the
miracle of creation and instilled a soul in his creature. Sounds
complicated but it is really very simple. No apes were turned into humans
and no apes bore human children. Man should not question the path used to
arrive at mankind.
In the beginning there was only the uncaused cause. And all things must
have been created from the uncaused cause.
The heaven and hell that religions are so prone to preach about endlessly
might be a returning to be a part of that being and be aware of it and hell
would be having the knowledge that you will never be part of that paradise.
That is my lesson for the day. I do not say that I believe any of it.
Wull
David Oberman
>This I gotta hear. 1) How could ID be possible without Someone to
>design,
Three Someones. Is there some characteristic the Universe has that
indicates otherwise?
Stone me
"wull" <wma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f3iGk.2185$Rx....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
No-one has said that is what has happened. Only those who think they
can deride the Evolution Theory try such simple diversions and distortions.
The theory goes that all the ape family descend from one source, and the
whole
of mammals descend from one source, as do the vertebrates. from one source.
In reference to other comments elsewhere:
Explanation, dumbed down for non-scientists has been provided for the
evolution
of the eye, which seems to be a touchstone for critics.
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
All that is left is for critics to ask "how do you know?" "You were not
there, and you
have no text written by God."
The critical point comes when those who believe by faith demand that the
facts fit their
preconceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
See para on Church Controversy
Scientists have been proved wrong before (but not by Christian belief)
, but they do not have dogma to fight. They are prepared to accept any new
source of fact
and rework their conclusions accordingly.
Stone me.
"Holy Hadron Colliders!"
moviePig
> In article <789c3757-4c08-4116-9153-5d406084e...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Okierazorbacker <okierazorbac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Hm. THERE'S the "insulting" the other guy was talking about. If you
> : disagree, ridicule the one who disagrees with you. That's called an
> : ad hominem argument,
>
> Actually, strictly speaking, it is not, even though among people whose
> ignorance extends to Latin it is frequently used to mean that.
Fun with words. From m-w online:
'ad hominem' -- Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather
than by an answer to the contentions made
I'm not sure what strict difference you're finding to #2. But,
meanwhile, I hadn't known at all about the nearly reverse-angled
#1 ...which also accepts the literal Latin, cleverly. So, I present
it here for everyone's potential edification (...ywia).
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Richard Schultz
: On Oct 6, 2:03?am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In article <789c3757-4c08-4116-9153-5d406084e...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Okierazorbacker <okierazorbac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> : Hm. ?THERE'S the "insulting" the other guy was talking about. ?If you
:> : disagree, ridicule the one who disagrees with you. ?That's called an
:> : ad hominem argument,
:> Actually, strictly speaking, it is not, even though among people whose
:> ignorance extends to Latin it is frequently used to mean that.
: 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
: 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather
: than by an answer to the contentions made
:
: I'm not sure what strict difference you're finding to #2.
In principle, the logical fallacy of "ad hominem" is the first of the two
definitions. Enough people use the term (strictly speaking, incorrectly)
in the second sense that a descriptive dictionary includes it as one of
the definitions. Nowadays, most dictionaries define words as they are used
rather than as they should be used (although the AHD does contain usage
notes to indicate what their Panel of Experts considers proper use of
the language, for all the good it does them).
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
George Peatty
<okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Also the film/play are nonsense. Wildly distorted by those with an ax
>to grind, taking the facts of a court case and turning them into
>basically a sermon for Darwinism. Pathetic.
I agree. It sure isn't hard to tell which side the movie is on. I find
myself liking the movie in spite of that. Spencer Tracy is perfect casting
for Darrow: two more implacable, mean-spirited human beings would be hard
to find, and that comes across perfectly.
George Peatty
Well, the good news is that Universe 2.0 promises to be a flawless upgrade,
and when we've been there 10,000 years, bright, shining as the sun, the
harshest problems of this present life will seem like dim memories ..
George Peatty
<okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's called sin. It's not fashionable to use that word, but sin in
>the world brought death into the world. It was not God's desire that
>we choose it, but it was the choice of our ancestors and we live with
>the results. And only a loving God would allow humanity the freedom
>to choose; ask anyone whose parent is a real control freak.
Spot on ..
George Peatty
Schultz) wrote:
>Every test that we can perform indicates that the Earth is several billion
>years old, and that the types of life present on the planet have changed
>over that time.
Ptolemy's epicycles account for 97% of all planetary motion, and they are a
complete fiction ..
I remember sitting in a Psychology of Learning class, listening to my
instructor talk at length about how the human brain stores memories. One
young student was not getting it, and raising her hand in complete
exasperation, asked pointedly, "Is any of this *real*?" The instructor
answered honestly, shaking her head no, and explaining, "This is just a
model we use to explain the data." Which is all any theory is, including
those of evolution and modern cosmology.
>In other words, evolution is a *fact*.
No one disputes that. It is most certainly not a fact that evolution is
either necessary or sufficient to explain how life began .. For the answers
to the transcendent questions of life, we look to other disciplines for more
meaningful answers ..
Tom Royer
On Oct 5, 10:46 pm, tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com> wrote:
> It does take a lot of courage to be a creationalist/intelligent
> designer; knowing that some day you may have to explain to the parents
> of a child with leukemia how it's all God's plan--or what kind of
> being, supreme or otherwise, intentionally creates such a thing.
>It's called sin. It's not fashionable to use that word, but sin in
>the world brought death into the world. It was not God's desire that
>we choose it, but it was the choice of our ancestors and we live with
>the results.
I find it difficult to believe that an omniscient being (one who knows
all, including the future) would create individuals that s/he knows
will choose incorrectly. There's no need to test people when one
knows ahead of time how they'll choose.
And don't bring up the subject of free will. My dog has free
will and the run of the house, but I just make it physically
impossible for him to go certain places. An omniscient
creator could make incorrect choices imposssible.
The conundrum of "free will" (particularly when some "free
choices" are as terrible as we've seen in the past and currently)
versus omniscience is what defeats creationism in my mind.
George Peatty
>The conundrum of "free will" (particularly when some "free
>choices" are as terrible as we've seen in the past and currently)
>versus omniscience is what defeats creationism in my mind.
The conundrum of free will has nothing to do with creationism ..
Okierazorbacker
>
> Every test that we can perform indicates that the Earth is several billion
> years old
And of course every test that we can perform is Ultimate Truth,
because we humans are omniscient.
Hogwash. Every test that you can perform in this regard starts with a
limited, definite chemical fact but then is used to build a
supposition, then another based on that, then another based on that.
Proves nothing.
Okierazorbacker
>
> Are you telling me that my family's history of heart disease arose because
> my ancestors were sinners? Was my grandfather (who was the only one of
> his generation who did not suffer from heart disease) less of a sinner than
> his brothers (all of whom had heart attacks while in their early 60's)?
>
pretty intense religious instruction, and yet you don't remember the
book of Genesis? Death entered the world because humans sinned.
Death has taken a multitude of faces since then. Heart disease is one
of them. "Less of a sinner" is a remarkably irrelevant concept. We
are all sinners, thus we all die, and in different ways. Why is that
so hard to understand?
Okierazorbacker
>
> Well, the good news is that Universe 2.0 promises to be a flawless upgrade,
> and when we've been there 10,000 years, bright, shining as the sun, the
> harshest problems of this present life will seem like dim memories ..
Universe 2.0! I like it.
Richard Schultz
: On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:57:20 +0000 (UTC), sch...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
: Schultz) wrote:
:>Every test that we can perform indicates that the Earth is several billion
:>years old, and that the types of life present on the planet have changed
:>over that time.
:
: Ptolemy's epicycles account for 97% of all planetary motion, and they are a
: complete fiction ..
I feel sorry for you in that it appears that you honestly do not understand
the difference between the evidence for evolution and the evidence for
Ptolemy's epicycles.
:>In other words, evolution is a *fact*.
:
: No one disputes that.
You just had someone confess to being a creationist -- creationists, by
definition, reject the very notion that evolution occurred.
: It is most certainly not a fact that evolution is
: either necessary or sufficient to explain how life began .. For the answers
: to the transcendent questions of life, we look to other disciplines for more
: meaningful answers ..
The question of how life originated is independent of the question of
whether or not it evolved once it had originated.
Okierazorbacker
>
> I find it difficult to believe that an omniscient being (one who knows
> all, including the future) would create individuals that s/he knows
> will choose incorrectly. There's no need to test people when one
> knows ahead of time how they'll choose.
That is definitely a much-discussed concept. Any thoughtful person
has surely pondered it. But if you know the end from the beginning,
does it mean you should give NO ONE the choice?
>
> And don't bring up the subject of free will. My dog has free
> will and the run of the house, but I just make it physically
> impossible for him to go certain places. An omniscient
> creator could make incorrect choices imposssible.
But it wouldn't be love. As Svengali said to the entranced Trilby
when she parroted the words "I love you," "No. No, it is only
Svengali talking to himself again."
Incidentally, do you not think it is physically impossible (or
mentally, or whatever) for us to go certain places? I do.
>
> The conundrum of "free will" (particularly when some "free
> choices" are as terrible as we've seen in the past and currently)
> versus omniscience is what defeats creationism in my mind.
>
I'm sorry you're so hung up on that, but in order for there to be
positive choices there must be negative ones...otherwise it's no
choice at all, just God "talking to himself again."
FoggyTown
> In article <9a9b9c2e-b9ed-4771-b587-40a8ae7b9...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> : On Oct 6, 2:03?am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> :> In article <789c3757-4c08-4116-9153-5d406084e...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Okierazorbacker <okierazorbac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :> : Hm. ?THERE'S the "insulting" the other guy was talking about. ?If you
> :> : disagree, ridicule the one who disagrees with you. ?That's called an
> :> : ad hominem argument,
>
> :> Actually, strictly speaking, it is not, even though among people whose
> :> ignorance extends to Latin it is frequently used to mean that.
>
> : �1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
> : �2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather
> : than by an answer to the contentions made
> :
> : I'm not sure what strict difference you're finding to #2. �
>
> In principle, the logical fallacy of "ad hominem" is the first of the two
> definitions. �Enough people use the term (strictly speaking, incorrectly)
> in the second sense that a descriptive dictionary includes it as one of
> the definitions. �Nowadays, most dictionaries define words as they are used
> rather than as they should be used (although the AHD does contain usage
> notes to indicate what their Panel of Experts considers proper use of
> the language, for all the good it does them).
>
So spake the pedant.
Okierazorbacker
>
> :>In other words, evolution is a *fact*.
> :
> : No one disputes that.
>
> You just had someone confess to being a creationist -- creationists, by
> definition, reject the very notion that evolution occurred.
Yeah, I'm not sure what George meant by that. Based on his other
comments he apparently accepts some sort of limited evolution within a
created universe, and that seems sensible enough up to a point.
I certainly dispute the commonly taught theories that involve
something crawling up out of the primordial ooze and its descendants
eventually developing legs, speech, etc. It would be laughable
science fiction if so many didn't accept it as "fact." But did our
ancestors (fill in the blank) years ago look a little more like the
guys on the Geico commercials than us? Probably. Proves nothing as
to whether they were created.
The more extreme theories of evolution are implausible even by
scientific theory. Take the big bang; Carl Sagan said that there was
this chunk of space stuff that went BANG and everything came out of
that. OK, where'd the chunk of space stuff come from? Even taken to
the big bang extreme SOMETHING had to have been created. Nothing can
come from a vacuum.
moviePig
(Can't strafe the guy for answering a direct question...)
moviePig
Easy to understand. Hard to tolerate (...at least without the caste-
mindset of of an Untouchable).
George Peatty
Schultz) wrote:
>You just had someone confess to being a creationist -- creationists, by
>definition, reject the very notion that evolution occurred.
Not *this* creationist ..
I only reject the notion that evolution offers any insight into the question
of how life began. And, my views of creationism are closer to what Newton
and Galileo and Kepler, especially Kepler, believed. The learned Kepler is
on record saying of his work on planetary motion, "O God, I am thinking Thy
thoughts after Thee!"
>: It is most certainly not a fact that evolution is
>: either necessary or sufficient to explain how life began .. For the answers
>: to the transcendent questions of life, we look to other disciplines for more
>: meaningful answers ..
>The question of how life originated is independent of the question of
>whether or not it evolved once it had originated.
On that, sir, we are agreed, though I would be remiss if I did not add in
principle. Come to specific cases, I doubt we'd agree on much.
Okierazorbacker
>
> Easy to understand. Hard to tolerate (...at least without the caste-
> mindset of of an Untouchable).
>
wouldn't be having this conversation.
Okierazorbacker
> Yu'all have slipped from politics to religion.
> Both of these subjects are better left alone.
See, this is why "Split: A Divided America" is such an important new
film. You can watch it free on IMDb at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0453549/
and it runs 90 minutes.
The film asks "WHY is this subject better left alone?" The ultimate
answer the film gives is that we've allowed our polemics to overwhelm
our curiosity and acceptance of one another. Rather than accept each
other IN SPITE of our differences, we choose to ignore them. Not
healthy.
Talking about something is always better than not talking about it.
The problems only arise when one party gets their back in the air and
lets their lower nature get the best of them. Hence Richard's
"ignoramus" comments. Not helpful.
Howard Brazee
(Richard Schultz) wrote:
>In principle, the logical fallacy of "ad hominem" is the first of the two
>definitions. Enough people use the term (strictly speaking, incorrectly)
>in the second sense that a descriptive dictionary includes it as one of
>the definitions. Nowadays, most dictionaries define words as they are used
>rather than as they should be used (although the AHD does contain usage
>notes to indicate what their Panel of Experts considers proper use of
>the language, for all the good it does them).
So what's the first definition of "begs the question"?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
<okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You and I have had discussions in which you claim to have had some
>pretty intense religious instruction, and yet you don't remember the
>book of Genesis? Death entered the world because humans sinned.
>Death has taken a multitude of faces since then. Heart disease is one
>of them. "Less of a sinner" is a remarkably irrelevant concept. We
>are all sinners, thus we all die, and in different ways. Why is that
>so hard to understand?
Nothing bad about death. But if we were created to be sinners, and
are punished for being fooled, instead of being allowed to die - then
the creator is evil indeed. Odd, that Jesus was good when the easy
way was to be Righteous.
But "sin" seems to have a definition which means "not like us". People
who aren't like us will be punished for that, because obviously our
values are the ones God had in mind from the beginning. Fortunately we
can pick and choose which scriptures in the Old Testament matter.
Howard Brazee
<peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:
>The conundrum of free will has nothing to do with creationism ..
Creationism is about the concept that everything is created by
something - so there must be something that wasn't created by
something first.
Howard Brazee
<peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:
>No one disputes that. It is most certainly not a fact that evolution is
>either necessary or sufficient to explain how life began .. For the answers
>to the transcendent questions of life, we look to other disciplines for more
>meaningful answers ..
It works better than other explanations. I like to ask a creationist
to show me why all the other religions are wrong. Or even a couple of
other religions wrong.
Howard Brazee
<okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The more extreme theories of evolution are implausible even by
>scientific theory. Take the big bang; Carl Sagan said that there was
>this chunk of space stuff that went BANG and everything came out of
>that. OK, where'd the chunk of space stuff come from? Even taken to
>the big bang extreme SOMETHING had to have been created. Nothing can
>come from a vacuum.
While you obviously don't understand the Big Bang theory (which isn't
the only theory scientists are looking at), I will note that your
logic works just as effectively in saying there can't be an eternal
Creator.
Derek Janssen
>
>>No one disputes that. It is most certainly not a fact that evolution is
>>either necessary or sufficient to explain how life began .. For the answers
>>to the transcendent questions of life, we look to other disciplines for more
>>meaningful answers ..
>
> It works better than other explanations. I like to ask a creationist
> to show me why all the other religions are wrong. Or even a couple of
> other religions wrong.
Well, not a creationist, but I can manage the "Why others are wrong" part:
- Catholicism directly suggests that God is disappointed with us because
we were Bad all those many years ago, and that imperfect people such as
us don't deserve to speak to Him, but maybe with a little
ritual-demonstrated penitence, we *might* be able to get duly appointed
representatives to put a good word in...
- Judaism never made any attempt to understand God, and keeps to the Old
Testament idea that God has unfathomable mood swings and, while
rewarding loyalty, will also level countries or enact generations of
curses as punitive damages if certain traditions are not faithfully kept...
Both which didn't sit well with the German Monk Guy--
Who thought that God *didn't* mind an open-door chat with His
lower-level employees any old time of the day, that He was generous
enough to allow us a little bit of slack if we were at least *trying*
hard, that there was nothing wrong with people reading the Bible in
their own living rooms without having to study Latin in church-sponsored
schools for six years or pay some overpaid monarchic figure crippling
taxes to read it for them, that forgiveness was a free abstract concept
and couldn't be "purchased" with beads or donations, and that there
wasn't any real point to dumping Mom into the whole mess just because
they needed a "goddess" character to look cool--And that if He really
*was* as snooty and elitist as the other brands made Him look, then why
did He send his kid to act all folksy around the marketplace and talk
about sheep, and lilies of the field, and stuff?
(...Those "funny" enough for ya, or do you want to throw out another
overused comic target for weak self-esteem?) ;)
Derek Janssen (see, it's *funny*, 'cause they all squabble among
themselves, and get into geeky lil' slap-fights, and it's like, funny 'n
stuff!)
eja...@verizon.net
Howard Brazee
<peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:
>I only reject the notion that evolution offers any insight into the question
>of how life began. And, my views of creationism are closer to what Newton
>and Galileo and Kepler, especially Kepler, believed. The learned Kepler is
>on record saying of his work on planetary motion, "O God, I am thinking Thy
>thoughts after Thee!"
Darwin didn't address how life began either. Some of this may have
been politics, but most of it was because he had no observations which
he could have used to make a hypothesis. And science is above all
about observations.
Of course that doesn't stop religions - and there are lots of
different stories about how life began in religions. Each one is as
likely/unlikely as the next, and they don't agree with each other.
Howard Brazee
<okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Every test that we can perform indicates that the Earth is several billion
>> years old
>
>And of course every test that we can perform is Ultimate Truth,
>because we humans are omniscient.
>
>Hogwash. Every test that you can perform in this regard starts with a
>limited, definite chemical fact but then is used to build a
>supposition, then another based on that, then another based on that.
>Proves nothing.
No they don't.
We can even use tree rings to go back 10,000 years.
David Oberman
David Oberman
>I certainly dispute the commonly taught theories that involve
>something crawling up out of the primordial ooze and its descendants
>eventually developing legs, speech, etc.
What about whales? Do you agree with the biologists that whales were
once land mammals? They seem to have crawled the wrong way.
>It would be laughable science fiction if so many didn't accept it as "fact."
You can't use your sense of humor as a gauge of the validity of a
scientific theory. The idea of atoms & protons & neutrons & electrons
is pretty funny, too. And the idea that gravity bends light is a hoot
-- like a big funhouse.
David Oberman
>The film asks "WHY is this subject better left alone?" The ultimate
>answer the film gives is that we've allowed our polemics to overwhelm
>our curiosity and acceptance of one another. Rather than accept each
>other IN SPITE of our differences, we choose to ignore them.
I had to grapple with accepting you the other day after you said you
don't like Renoir.
Okierazorbacker
Okierazorbacker
>
> Nothing bad about death. But if we were created to be sinners, and
> are punished for being fooled, instead of being allowed to die - then
> the creator is evil indeed.
Wha? Humanity was created NOT to be sinners. Our forbears chose
that. Your logic is like blaming the parents for the sins of the
children; "I wouldn't have stolen that car, Dad, if I hadn't been
born!"
>
> But "sin" seems to have a definition which means "not like us".
Wha? "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." I'm
one of "all." Aren't you?
Okierazorbacker
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 14:02:43 -0700 (PDT), Okierazorbacker
>
> >The more extreme theories of evolution are implausible even by
> >scientific theory. Take the big bang; Carl Sagan said that there was
> >this chunk of space stuff that went BANG and everything came out of
> >that. OK, where'd the chunk of space stuff come from? Even taken to
> >the big bang extreme SOMETHING had to have been created. Nothing can
> >come from a vacuum.
>
> While you obviously don't understand the Big Bang theory (which isn't
> the only theory scientists are looking at), I will note that your
> logic works just as effectively in saying there can't be an eternal
> Creator.
>
don't understand. Apparently Carl Sagan didn't understand it, since
my understanding is based primarily on his remarks. It's not that
complicated.
As for the second half of your reply, I can make no sense whatever
from your assertion. My point is that our universe started somehow,
and there is no way it could have started on its own. Those are the
physical laws that we operate under in this universe. How am I wrong
there, and how does that apply to the God who created and transcends
those laws?
Invid Fan
<88b2a3a2-ebf3-4638...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Okierazorbacker <okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, if a god can transcend those laws obviously the Universe could
too, or in other words there's no reason to apply different rules to
whatever caused the universe. Do we know what happened to set off the
Big Bang? No. And, if you'd like, you can call that "god". However, it
could just as likely be a force of nature that happens based on rules
and laws we don't know about yet. I have no problem with people
worshiping natural forces or objects, but saying god created the
universe might be no different then saying god creates rain...
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Anim8rFSK
"Magnus, Robot Fighter" <M...@Key.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:02:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Sutpen
> <toms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 5, 7:25 pm, "Magnus, Robot Fighter" <M...@Key.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> This is just one of the ways in which 'Inherit the Wind', either as
> >> >> play or movie, is a gross distortion of what the Scopes circus was
> >> >> about. Understandbale, though. I mean, a fairy tale of religious
> >> >> bigotry in a struggle against the forces of enlightenment is much
> >> >> easier to swallow than a saga of religious bigotry opposing racial
> >> >> bigotry. More nuance there than audiences could handle, then and now.
> >>
> >> >Also, Scopes wasn't the poor "innocent" everyman Darrin Stevens he was
> >> >portrayed in the play/movie, he was one of a group of activist teachers
> >> >who *intended* to push the issue to court by direct violation--
> >>
> >> Oh...now...next you'll be telling me sweet Rosa Parks wasn't just some
> >> old woman who was tired and wanted to sit down.
> >
> >*****
> >Uhhhhhh . . .
> >
> >Let's just say it wasn't a complete coincidence that a photographer
> >was on hand when she was booked.
> >
> >And she was only 42 when she was arrested. If that's old then . . . so
> >am I (gulp).
> >
> >Tom Sutpen
>
>
> mmm...well, I was being facetious, but I could have SWORN there was a
> 70's movie about Rosa Parks. Apparently though I'm thinking about The
> Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rosa_Parks_Story
--
Third root canal - averted.
Hip Hip Hurrah!
Richard Schultz
: So what's the first definition of "begs the question"?
My AHD (1st College Edition) has two definitions for "beg the question," and
neither of them is the completely incorrect one used by a large number of
ignoramuses. (The two that it does have are (1) to presuppose the conclusion
in one's argument and (2) to equivocate.)
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Richard Schultz
: On Oct 6, 1:00?am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> Are you telling me that my family's history of heart disease arose because
:> my ancestors were sinners? ?Was my grandfather (who was the only one of
:> his generation who did not suffer from heart disease) less of a sinner than
:> his brothers (all of whom had heart attacks while in their early 60's)?
: You and I have had discussions in which you claim to have had some
: pretty intense religious instruction,
I have never claimed to have had "intense religious instruction." I have
claimed to be more knowledgeable about certain subjects than you -- but that
wouldn't take "intense religious instruction," or any religious instruction
at all.
: and yet you don't remember the book of Genesis? Death entered
: the world because humans sinned.
That is a Christian interpretation and not actually in the text of Genesis.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Richard Schultz
:> I had to grapple with accepting you the other day after you said you
:> don't like Renoir.
:
: Don't like Godard either.
It's too late *now* for you to worm your way into our good graces.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
To Die, to sleepe, is that all? I all;
No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes. . ."
Richard Schultz
: I certainly dispute the commonly taught theories that involve
: something crawling up out of the primordial ooze and its descendants
: eventually developing legs, speech, etc.
These are not theories -- they are facts.
: It would be laughable science fiction if so many didn't accept
: it as "fact."
Your ignorance would be laughable if it were not shared by so many.
: But did our
: ancestors (fill in the blank) years ago look a little more like the
: guys on the Geico commercials than us? Probably. Proves nothing as
: to whether they were created.
You're beginning to sound like you believe in the compromise theory
posited in _Science Made Stupid_.
: The more extreme theories of evolution are implausible even by
: scientific theory. Take the big bang; Carl Sagan said that there was
: this chunk of space stuff that went BANG and everything came out of
: that. OK, where'd the chunk of space stuff come from?
That question is meaningless. It's like asking what result you get when
you divide by zero (I humbly request all smarty-pantses present to refrain
from mentioning L'Hopital's rule at this point).
: Even taken to
: the big bang extreme SOMETHING had to have been created. Nothing can
: come from a vacuum.
That's not true -- look up the concepts of "Planck Length" and "Quantum
Vacuum" sometime.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
: At least you admit it's a theory.
General Relativity is a theory. Does that mean that gravity doesn't exist?
Richard Schultz
: On Oct 6, 12:57?am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> Every test that we can perform indicates that the Earth is several billion
:> years old
: And of course every test that we can perform is Ultimate Truth,
: because we humans are omniscient.
The basic principle of the scientific endeavor is that there is some kind
of Ultimate Truth (to put it in your terms) and that the means of
uncovering this truth is by observation, experimentation, and hypothesis
testing. If every single sample of U-238 that I investigate has the same
half-life, and if that half-life appears to be constant, then it is not
unreasonable to extrapolate that even the samples of U-238 that I have not
investigated personally will have the same constant half-life. If I make
that extrapolation, I can gauge how old a rock containing U-238 is (to be
more precise, how long it's been since the rock solidified). If every
single sample of K-40 that I investigate has the same half-life, and that
half-life appears to be constant, then it is not an unreasonable extrapolation
to assume that even the samples of K-40 that I have not investigated
personally have that same constant half-life. From that extrapolation, I
can gauge how old a rock containing K-40 is (or, more precisely, how long
it's been since the rock solidified). If the date of the oldest rock
containing K-40 is consistent with that of the oldest rock containing U-238
(repeat for as many isotopes as you like), then I have a self-consistent
set of data that supports my conclusions both about the age of the planet
and about the reasonableness of my extrapolation that I can use radioisotope
dating as a means of determining the age of a sample.
: Hogwash. Every test that you can perform in this regard starts with a
: limited, definite chemical fact but then is used to build a
: supposition, then another based on that, then another based on that.
: Proves nothing.
Now you sound like Charles Fort. Scientific proof is not like a proof in
geometry -- it is a matter of the support for a particular hypothesis being
so strong that no competing hypothesis can account for the data. The only
way that a 6000-year-old universe can be made consistent with the world
that we see is by assuming that God is lying to us (Gosse's "Omphalos"
theory). If God covered his tracks that well, then we might as well *treat*
the universe as if it were billions of years old.
As I see it, the big advantage that I have over you is that I can read the
first two chapters of Genesis and find several far more profound concepts
than you apparently are able to.
Howard Brazee
(Richard Schultz) wrote:
>: So what's the first definition of "begs the question"?
>
>My AHD (1st College Edition) has two definitions for "beg the question," and
>neither of them is the completely incorrect one used by a large number of
>ignoramuses. (The two that it does have are (1) to presuppose the conclusion
>in one's argument and (2) to equivocate.)
Interesting. I would assume this battle has been pretty much lost.
That dictionary apparently isn't tallying how often the "incorrect"
definition is used.
Howard Brazee
<okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nothing bad about death. But if we were created to be sinners, and
>> are punished for being fooled, instead of being allowed to die - then
>> the creator is evil indeed.
>
>Wha? Humanity was created NOT to be sinners. Our forbears chose
>that. Your logic is like blaming the parents for the sins of the
>children; "I wouldn't have stolen that car, Dad, if I hadn't been
>born!"
So it's our forebears' fault, not God's. Either way, we are what we
are.
>> But "sin" seems to have a definition which means "not like us".
>
>Wha? "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." I'm
>one of "all." Aren't you?
I look at what people actually do. They condemn people who are
different from them. They commit evils because others don't think
they way they do. They are Righteous instead of Good (Jesus was the
opposite). They find comfort in knowing they will be rewarded while
the vast majority either die or are punished.
Tom Royer
news:90pke451sm08u134c...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:28:28 GMT, "Tom Royer" <roye...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>The conundrum of "free will" (particularly when some "free
>>choices" are as terrible as we've seen in the past and currently)
>>versus omniscience is what defeats creationism in my mind.
>
> The conundrum of free will has nothing to do with creationism ..
It does when you bring in the concepts of sin and of perpetuating
punishment from sinner to the descendant.
Kingo Gondo
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:gcc9ee$8gm$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In article
> <5f6411d8-ff2d-48b0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Okierazorbacker <okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : The concept of natural selection is basic common sense, but it's one
> : thing to say that a herd of wildebeest will produce a certain number
> : of slightly less fit creatures who will become lion chow and therefore
> : the best traits will pass on to the next generation. It's an entirely
> : different thing to say that a one-cell organism eventually grew eyes,
> : a respiratory system, legs, a skeleton, etc. Ludicrous.
>
> Luckily for the rest of us, the way the world works does not depend on
> ignoramuses do and do not find ludicrous.
Evolution ludicrous, but a resurrected carpenter born of a virgin accepted
as "gospel".
Ladies and gentleman, I present you with Exhibit A.
Richard Schultz
: On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 05:27:23 +0000 (UTC), sch...@mail.biu.ack.il
: (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:>: So what's the first definition of "begs the question"?
:>My AHD (1st College Edition) has two definitions for "beg the question," and
:>neither of them is the completely incorrect one used by a large number of
:>ignoramuses. (The two that it does have are (1) to presuppose the conclusion
:>in one's argument and (2) to equivocate.)
: Interesting. I would assume this battle has been pretty much lost.
: That dictionary apparently isn't tallying how often the "incorrect"
: definition is used.
My dictionary is about 30 years old -- it's possible that the fourth
edition includes the commonly used incorrect definition.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Okierazorbacker
>
> : and yet you don't remember the book of Genesis? Death entered
> : the world because humans sinned.
>
> That is a Christian interpretation and not actually in the text of Genesis.
>
Okierazorbacker
> In article <8fdbe593-363f-414d-a0c9-a3de5b23f...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com>, Okierazorbacker <okierazorbac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :> I had to grapple with accepting you the other day after you said you
> :> don't like Renoir.
> :
> : Don't like Godard either.
>
> It's too late *now* for you to worm your way into our good graces.
>
Okierazorbacker
> In article <88b2a3a2-ebf3-4638-a29b-024b364ac...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Okierazorbacker <okierazorbac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : At least you admit it's a theory.
>
> General Relativity is a theory. Does that mean that gravity doesn't exist?
>
Okierazorbacker
>
> I look at what people actually do. They condemn people who are
> different from them. They commit evils because others don't think
> they way they do. They are Righteous instead of Good (Jesus was the
> opposite). They find comfort in knowing they will be rewarded while
> the vast majority either die or are punished.
>
I'm investing so much time in trying to explain my position?
Also, "they condemn people" is stereotyping. I condemn no one. There
are religious types who do, and there are scientific types (AHEM
Schultz AHEM) who do the same, out of self-satisfaction. OTOH I am a
sinner and deserve only hell myself. It's only God's grace and my
acceptance of same that makes the difference. His grace is available
to everyone.
And btw, EVERYONE is different from me. I'm used to it by now.
Okierazorbacker
>
> Evolution ludicrous, but a resurrected carpenter born of a virgin accepted
> as "gospel".
>
> Ladies and gentleman, I present you with Exhibit A.
With one notable difference: Eyewitnesses.
Okierazorbacker
>
> I have never claimed to have had "intense religious instruction." I have
> claimed to be more knowledgeable about certain subjects than you -- but that
> wouldn't take "intense religious instruction," or any religious instruction
> at all.
>
instruction you had, and it was religious, and your wording makes it
sound pretty intense.
Of course, you never do get down to specifics, so you may just be
talking through your hat and doing your own version of the Superior
Dance.
Okierazorbacker
>
> The basic principle of the scientific endeavor is that there is some kind
> of Ultimate Truth (to put it in your terms) and that the means of
> uncovering this truth is by observation, experimentation, and hypothesis
> testing. If every single sample of U-238 that I investigate has the same
> half-life, and if that half-life appears to be constant, then it is not
> unreasonable to extrapolate that even the samples of U-238 that I have not
> investigated personally will have the same constant half-life. If I make
> that extrapolation, I can gauge how old a rock containing U-238 is (to be
> more precise, how long it's been since the rock solidified). If every
> single sample of K-40 that I investigate has the same half-life, and that
> half-life appears to be constant, then it is not an unreasonable extrapolation
> to assume that even the samples of K-40 that I have not investigated
> personally have that same constant half-life. From that extrapolation, I
> can gauge how old a rock containing K-40 is (or, more precisely, how long
> it's been since the rock solidified). If the date of the oldest rock
> containing K-40 is consistent with that of the oldest rock containing U-238
> (repeat for as many isotopes as you like), then I have a self-consistent
> set of data that supports my conclusions both about the age of the planet
> and about the reasonableness of my extrapolation that I can use radioisotope
> dating as a means of determining the age of a sample.
Thank you for finally being specific. Ironically you just proved my
point. The fact that you can empirically prove something in the lab
does NOT mean that you can extrapolate back "billions of years" based
on that data, I don't care what anyone says. If you are off by
0.00001% in any regard, then multiply that exponentially, you're off
by millions of years. Calls the entire process into serious question,
unless you're uncritically indoctrinated into believing it's "fact"
and not theory.
>
> : Hogwash. Every test that you can perform in this regard starts with a
> : limited, definite chemical fact but then is used to build a
> : supposition, then another based on that, then another based on that.
> : Proves nothing.
>
> Now you sound like Charles Fort. Scientific proof is not like a proof in
> geometry -- it is a matter of the support for a particular hypothesis being
> so strong that no competing hypothesis can account for the data. The only
> way that a 6000-year-old universe can be made consistent with the world
> that we see is by assuming that God is lying to us (Gosse's "Omphalos"
> theory). If God covered his tracks that well, then we might as well *treat*
> the universe as if it were billions of years old.
>
I never heard of Charles Fort. And I never claimed a 6000-year-old
universe. You're fighting a straw man. Again.