America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[cwes99_03]

'A meaningful discussion between people using a reference solely based on faith and indoctrination and people that insist on empiracal, observation and testing of evidence is absurd'

 

If this is what Dov and Turtle meant then you are correct in my misunderstanding. Your use of the word solely is the important tipping point in your paraphrase. If one is unwilling to look at scientific data, or conversely if one is unwilling to look at religious teaching, then the conversation would go nowhere. I believe I have demonstrated my willingness to consider the data, in that I have done so and have a very deep understanding of the theory. In fact I will do so again here in a second if I have the time in dealing with my partial misstatement about the flat earth.

That was however not how it was stated, as is evidenced by

It is just this kind of religiously oriented twisted logic that is the crux of this thread; Americans enamored of religious ideas refusing to admit any scientific discovery that contradicts their wholly buch.

I do not contend there is no wisdom, well writ literature, or occasional factual history in the bible , however just as wisdom is where one finds it, so is crap where one finds it. Proposing that crap is wisdom is preposterous; the emperor has no clothes.

In my opinion a scientist may "believe" in "God" only in reference to some matters, and only because the concept "God" is different for every person. Writing as a 'scientism scientist', in my opinion whoever believes in a specific god of a specific religion cannot, plainly and obviously, be a scientist.

Thus is the reason I used the word viewpoint in my paraphrasing. Viewpoint is an interesting thing. It simply means standing in a different location, thus seeing things from a different angle. In this case, a religious person might stand on one side and a scientific person might stand on the other, but they can have a conversation about what each can see. Dov and Turtle seem to be of the opinion that anyone who believes in a particular religion isn't even looking at the same object (say they have their back turned to the object that the scientist is looking at) and therefore can't have a conversation about said object. They further go on to say that they are looking at an imaginary object (again me paraphrasing.) Would you not agree this is a good analogy? We are after all proof in that we are looking at the same posts, but from two different viewpoints.

[cwes99_03]

I found myself flummoxed by this as well.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/5570-spiritual-vs-religious.html

 

How are you confused Infinite?

You point to a thread where it is well stated?

I chose to use the word spiritual because it is more encompassing. However, there are many who equate the terms. Thus one who is religious is by default spiritual, however, one who claims to be spiritual is not necessarily religious (in the context we are speaking in, I acknowledge one may religiously watch a television program or do other activities.) I don't understand how you are so easily confused on the issue.

[cwes99_03]

1500 BC? Hardly. At 1500 BC there was no Bible, although perhaps the very earliest writings may have been done by then.

 

We have discussed the Flat Earth myth several times here at Hypography and it is definitely a myth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

 

I have viewed the wikipedia site. I do wish to ammend my statement if I may.

There were still a large portion of people in both science and religion who doubted the idea of the earth being a sphere. This is evidenced both in writing, as noted on the wikipedia page, as well as in action. The action actually being no action.

If the earth was widely believed/proven to be round then it certainly would have been much easier for spice traders to venture out to sea and find a shorter less dangerous passage to the far east than around the cape of Africa. The journey that way was dangerous because of pirates and the stormiest seas on earth. Still for a very long period of time the most adventurous would only sail around Africa to get there, while the rest chose to make the trek by land.

It wasn't until the era of Columbus, Hudson, and Magellan that a few became adventurous enough (perhaps emboldened by their belief in scientific reasoning of times past and present) to attempt to prove it by sailing around the earth.

Once proven exploration took on a leap (after Columbus sailed to the Americas hundreds more took up the call, after Magellan sailed around the earth hundreds took up a call to search for a northwest passage) to discover the earth.

 

As to the Bible saying it was round back in 1500 BC, I will bring my Bible tomorrow to site the precise scriptures, and state why I chose 1500 BC.

 

My guess is that you think so because you are not aware of the research in the field.

 

Here is a review of a book about religion as a result of evolution:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/05/RVGE9GTMIE1.DTL&type=books

 

Exactly. I am unaware of much of the reasearch in the field. Thus I asked for proof to Dov's post that it was true and answers to my other points, which I note he has still failed/refused to do. Thanks, Tor.

I am however capable of understanding some thoughts on the subject as they have been related here and elsewhere.

1) the idea is born out of a need to explain the origins of theistic/non-material belief, rather than to take it at face value. I have no problem with this as I feel it is necessary to test out beliefs. I also believe that in some cases, it is very true. Thus is my reason for pointing out the difference between religion and philosophy.

I recognize that there are some things called religions which in truth are little more than organized human philosophy.

2) the adherents of the theory are often those "hellbent" on proving that God can't exist.

3) there are questions to be raised against the theory, and i have done so in this very thread

Back up your 2 points above by citing evidence for them.

I have backed up my point by citing Biblical evidence, which can be empirically verified through a study of languages, periods, and archaeology.

You so far have not provided any such evidence for the two statements you made in the previous post

1) that there were humans practicing religion 100,000 years ago

2) that religion is an evolving social experiment and has no divine origins.

 

It is interesting that I as a religious person, am accused of the exact thing that Dov hasdone. He is so blindly faithful to the scientific beliefs of others that he seeks to silence those who question the theory and refuses to provide evidence to back up his points.

Now I shall read the link you provided and hope to discuss this further with those willing.

[Turtle]

It is interesting that I as a religious person, am accused of the exact thing that Dov hasdone. He is so blindly faithful to the scientific beliefs of others that he seeks to silence those who question the theory and refuses to provide evidence to back up his points.

Now I shall read the link you provided and hope to discuss this further with those willing.

 

:naughty: :doh: ;) Your airigonance is showing.:hyper: :hyper:

[ughaibu]

"New World" drugs in ancient Egypt: http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_2000/wells.html

[learnin to learn]

"New World" drugs in ancient Egypt: http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_2000/wells.html

 

I'm sorry but how does this relate to the subject that is being discussed in this thread?

[ughaibu]

See post 142, section 1.

[paigetheoracle]

With regards to CWE (The People?) - like Voltaire I can't agree with what you say but I'd fight to the death for your right to say it! (Even if it's in the wrong forum).;)

 

Do you know why communism failed? (Social evoltion point here, that is very relevant as you'll see as my argument progresses also psychological argument, that points out what is truly going on here, rather than what appears to be going on). It didn't try to get the best out of people but artificially tried to suppress the worst (Same reason political correctness and 'trying' to be fair in any way, shape or form fails).:)

 

Next point. Genius can get the best out of the worst - stupidity (self-indulgence) can't produce anything of worth, no matter how good the quality of its resources (It turns a silk purse into a sows ear rather than vice-versa - destructive, not constructive or creative: A bad workman blames his tools, a good one creates his own).:doh:

 

What you personally are aware of CWE is being 'changed' (evolving in mind or body - mutating like a butterfly larva inside a chrysallis). It frightens you, so you fight to hold onto your form or beliefs about the world (mind/sanity) i.e. try to survive as you are - that is keep your present identity/shape): The ignorant fear it for the same reason as they fear any form of death as it is the annihilation of the self, so bitterly resist it (Why we love horror films): What's good, we eat - what's bad, eats us. A film trilogy based on the works of H P Lovecraft put it beautifully (section run by Japanese director). The heroine is struggling against the monsters devouring her, when one of the human characters, an ally of them, says "Stop struggling - when you've metamorphosized into them and can see the opposite viewpoint, you'll love them and hate the old husk of what you were" (Mind/body swop). :msn:

 

Now as I've stepped in as a ref to explain the rules, you can return to your corners and come out fighting again. Round two!:wink:

[cwes99_03]

I love to read psychobable like the above. Note: I'm not saying that Paige does not believe what he is writing, but let's break it down.

 

Do you know why communism failed? (Social evoltion point here, that is very relevant as you'll see as my argument progresses also psychological argument, that points out what is truly going on here, rather than what appears to be going on). It didn't try to get the best out of people but artificially tried to suppress the worst (Same reason political correctness and 'trying' to be fair in any way, shape or form fails).

Well there are actually other viewpoints on this. Communism failed not because of the ideals, as on paper it would be the ideal society. It failed because of the human element. Some humans always want to have more than others. Some humans will always want to dominate others. Thus communism in USSR failed because of cruel and incapable rulers like Krushev, and others in the upper eschelon of the party.

 

Besides that, social evolution did not predict it. History predicted it. Man will continue trying new ideas and watching them fail over and over and over. This is actually stated in the Bible, (some 3000 years older than the idea of social evolution). Ecc. 8:9

But let's see how it relates to the rest of things.

 

stupidity (self-indulgence) can't produce anything of worth, no matter how good the quality of its resources

Huh? Are you saying that the stupidest of persons can't accidentally do the best thing? Even a rat can pull a lever and get his food.

 

What you personally are aware of CWE is being changed

First off let's get it straight call me cw or cwes or cwes99_03.

Second how am I aware of being changed? What has led you to such a conclusion? I don't even understand what you mean by that quote.

 

It frightens you

What frightens me? Change? I work in a job that survives, neigh thrives, on change. I love change, it is the one thing that keeps me moving. New techonology excites me. I would be terribly bored if there were never change, or new experiences.

 

The ignorant fear it for the same reason as they fear any form of death as it is the annihilation of the self, so bitterly resist it (Why we love horror films)

I don't think you are calling me ignorant here, but you associate me with them, never a good move when you are also accusing someone of being frightened or possibly mentally unstable as a general rule. Try telling someone who is depressed and thinking of committing suicide that they aren't thinking correctly, just horribly stupid.

But since you aren't saying I'm ignorant, I will add 1) I'm not afraid of death 2) I don't like horror films because they are often associated with what is described in the Bible as demonic, and frankly I'm not scared of them (not saying I don't jump when someone does something sudden, but it lasts for an instant and I move on.)

 

A film trilogy based on the works of H P Lovecraft put it beautifully (section run by Japanese director). The heroine is struggling against the monsters devouring her, when one of the human characters, an ally of them, says "Stop struggling - when you've metamorphosized into them and can see the opposite viewpoint, you'll love them and hate the old husk of what you were" (Mind/body swop).

So you are telling me that I have to stop believing what I believe and join the crowd of others so that I will understand and like them, and basically that I can't understand unless I do. While I could likewise turn this around on the others (the monster could stop devouring and become a hero), it would be pointless. There is a reason for conflict. The idea that all conflict can be resolved if everybody would just learn to give up their way of thinking is ludicrous. One must make an informed decision, or else there is no reason for any knowledge, or any viewpoint.

 

Well, I didn't see anything in your post that indicated that communism's failure, or social evolution was relevant in the rest of your post.

[cwes99_03]

"New World" drugs in ancient Egypt: http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_2000/wells.html

 

I've read the site. It is a very good autopsy of the findings and the criticisms of the research in question (figure of speech, but also literal.)

 

So what would you have drawn from this site Ug? That there are some who question things purely based off of historically known data? I would agree.

I would also agree that this is the scientific as well as the "legal" way recognized by courts around the world. It is called precedent.

 

As to the conclusions made on that site, and the research itself, it is very interesting. I enjoyed reading it and disecting it along with the author.

While this may be off subject, I find this part of the conclusion a little troubling.

 

The initial reaction to the findings of Balabanova et. al. were highly critical. These criticisms were not based on a known failing in the authors' research methodology, rather they were attempts to cast doubt on an implication of the research - that cocaine and nicotine were brought to Egypt from the New World before Columbus. This conclusion is not acceptable to conservative investigators of the past. In fact it suggests a deep-rooted aversion to what Balabanova suggested might mean an unraveling of aspects of history contrary to basic reconstructions. This aversion, according to Kehoe (1998) stems from the conviction that Indians were primitive savages destined to be overcome by the civilized world - that the acme of evolutionary success resided in the conquering race itself. "Childlike savages could never have voyaged across oceans."

 

The idea that it stems from the conviction that Indians were primitive savages incapable of ... seems to me to be only opinion. There is no demonstrated evidence of this in the entire rest of the site, so I'm not sure why he draws these conclusions, except because of his own convictions of people who question. Likewise, this is what is being done on this thread. Some have pre-concieved notions of others here (namely me) and they base all their ideas off of these pre-concieved notions rather than on the subject at hand.

[cwes99_03]

Now as to my statement that 1500 BC the Hebrews were aware that the earth was round.

 

I further adjust my statement. It was not the 16th century BC, but the 8th century BC. Isaiah 40:22 "There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth..."

 

The idea of 1500 BC was actually confused in my mind with the scripture in Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth on nothing." This identifies that the ancient Hebrews were aware that there was nothing physically holding the earth up in the solar system, unlike a man holding a ball above his head.

 

Note however, that the scripture in the Bible is approximately 200 years older than the work by Pythagoras. Thus Pythagoras is not the "first person to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth, as the wikipedia site says. He is however the first non-religious person, and the first person who doesn't claim that his thought came from God.

[paigetheoracle]

I love to read psychobable like the above. ...Well, I didn't see anything in your post that indicated that communism's failure, or social evolution was relevant in the rest of your post.

 

Well I don't see anything in your post that showed you understood anything I said or any depth in social evolution either. Happy Easter! (just call me QueQuog!).

[cwes99_03]

Ah thank you Nay it is.

 

Could you please edit your post, again.

 

You see those little quote tags inside the [ and ] and one of them has a / in front of it. That means everything between the first quote and the second /quote will appear in a box as a quote of what was said above, conveying one cohesive quote. Thus you must start and stop quote tags repeatedly if you want to comment between parts of my post that you are quoting. Otherwise it appears all as an original quote by myself.

[cwes99_03]

Guess Infinite beat me too it, but now we have lost all of your comments on my post.

 

Infinite, can you undo your edit, as it removed QueQog's comments on my earlier post.

[InfiniteNow]

Guess Infinite beat me too it, but now we have lost all of your comments on my post.

 

Infinite, can you undo your edit, as it removed QueQog's comments on my earlier post.

:doh:

 

You know, it turns out that I AM human... and a very tired one at that.

 

I only saw a long quote with your name at the top and a 2 sentence reply, so edited the quote as it was excessive. Did not even see the responses within, and unfortunately cannot change it back. Paige, please accept my apology for making such a silly error.

 

:doh:

:doh:

:doh:

 

Must be me being all drunk with power again. :hihi:

 

 

Perhaps Paige you'd be so kind as to summarize your response again? Sorry bro.

[paigetheoracle]

Ah thank you Nay it is.

 

Could you please edit your post, again.

 

You see those little quote tags inside the [ and ] and one of them has a / in front of it. That means everything between the first quote and the second /quote will appear in a box as a quote of what was said above, conveying one cohesive quote. Thus you must start and stop quote tags repeatedly if you want to comment between parts of my post that you are quoting. Otherwise it appears all as an original quote by myself.

 

Not sure if this is my fault or not - please contact Infinite for meaning on this (Household cleaning that got slightly out of hand apparently! We all make mistakes, as my mother said looking down on me and realizing what she'd just given birth to). The trouble with me is that in trying to clarify my meaning, I sometimes become so complex in my explanation that I turn into a blackhole of self-absorbed complexity (No wonder I get migraines!).

 

By the way, with regards to your confusion over what I meant about the HP Lovecraft film - I don't want you to become your own enemy; I want you to see that you are your own enemy! (By this I mean that the only thing we truly ever fight is our own ignorance).

 

'Humour is the very essence of a democratic society' (The Prisoner TV series by Patrick McGoohan). In the film by Roger Corman, based (very) losely on 'The Raven', every attack one magician makes upon the other is turned into something trivial and harmless (Thrown dagger becomes a bunch of flowers/ cannonball is left spinning in space, instead of hitting and exploding on an object). The point I'm making here is that as long as we don't give up on each other and the argument in hand (what the hell was it again?), things won't descend into violence and flaming, and we can still have fun plus learn from the mutual exchange. Severance is painful for this reason. Nuff said?

[CraigD]

Now as to my statement that 1500 BC the Hebrews were aware that the earth was round.

 

I further adjust my statement. It was not the 16th century BC, but the 8th century BC. Isaiah 40:22 "There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth..."

 

The idea of 1500 BC was actually confused in my mind with the scripture in Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth on nothing." This identifies that the ancient Hebrews were aware that there was nothing physically holding the earth up in the solar system, unlike a man holding a ball above his head.

I don’t think a reasonable argument can be made that the Bible states that the Earth is a spheroid.

 

Cwes’s argument appears to depend on an equivalence between the word “circle” or “disk” and “sphere”, “ball”, “globe”, etc. Modern Hebrew has distinct equivalents of these English words, and given that even prehistoric people commonly encountered both disk-shaped and ball-shaped objects, I doubt that ancient Hebrew did not also. Had the original writers of Isaiah 40 or Job 26 intended to describe the Earth as a sphere, they would have used such a word, not circle.

 

Here are the full verses, from the King James version of the Bible

Isaiah 40:22

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

Job 26:7

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

The Isaiah gives a plain and straightforward description of the shape of the Earth. It is flat, circular, and covered by the heavens as a tent is covered by fabric curtains. This is a common, though incorrect, ancient theory for the shape of the earth. The Job states that this flat surface is not supported by any ordinary material, but “hangs on nothing”. This is less common – most contemporary theories propose that the earth rests on something, such as a giant humanoid god, or a giant turtle.

 

Theories for the spherical shape of the Earth are difficult to date precisely. The 8th Century BC Greek writer Homer clearly describes it as a flat disk, while the 5th century BC mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras clearly described it as a sphere. 3rd centrury BC mathematician and astronomer Eratosthenes famously estimated the Earth’s circumference using a scientifically sound approach and obtaining a result that was within 2% or 20% (uncertainty over the precise value of the ancient units he used) of modern values.

 

The non-Jewish Greeks, not the ancient Jews, appear to have first determined the correct shape of the Earth. These ancient scientists attributed their work to human intellect, not knowledge given by a deity.

 

The wikipedia article “History of Geodesy” has a good synopsis of this.