Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 29, 2006 19:05:51 GMT -4
What you have to understand is that what I say about the Goddess is my belief. The central tenet of my faith is "I could be wrong." Forgive me for saying so, but it's not a very catchy central tenet. The actress? Funny story, in any case. No, I knew that. I think this is the situation for most people, of either gender. Can you give me more details? I would like to read up on this if possible. If I'm ignorant it's not willful ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 29, 2006 21:37:47 GMT -4
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html; Talk Origins meets all your basic evolutionary study needs. "I could be wrong" may not be catchy, but it's true. I am human and therefore fallible. If I couldn't be wrong, I would be the Goddess myself. God, by Its very definition, is above humanity, and it would be a cruel God indeed that didn't understand that fact and allow for human fallibility. And since it's true that most people of whatever gender generally feel stronger emotional connections to people of their own gender, and since women ending messy relationships frequently wish they were lesbians, and since a majority of Americans at last polling didn't think there was anything wrong with being gay, why aren't more women, at least, lesbian than are? Again, studies across societal boundaries show a fairly steady rate of homosexuality. Oh, don't get me wrong--I knew people who experimented in high school or college, sometimes because they considered it cool and rebellious. But pretty much invariably, when it came time to choose long-term relationships, they settled down with people of the opposite sex, no matter how strongly they've claimed to be gay or bi before.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 29, 2006 23:01:31 GMT -4
Certainly I find women easier to talk to and more accessible emotionally, and I've had quite a lot more warm, friendly relationships with women. Ditto for me. While there have been a few excellent exceptions, in general I much prefer females for company and have a fairly intense dislike of egotistical macho men. Not ditto for me, though the most likely explanation is that I'm a heterosexual male, and as Gillian has admitted, a now-and-then fornicator going back to the late 60s, and I have no regrets about it at all. In fact, one of the best things that ever happened to me was getting over the religion-bred hangups I had, and many of those experiences were probably the finest that I could have ever experienced on this planet. I was lucky to learn before the age of 20 the difference between making love and plain old [fill in your own term]. As a result, I was never promiscuous. Having joined then left this thread long ago, I have read every post and enjoyed the discussion. I too noticed the adultery/fornication confusion and was glad you mentioned it Gillian. [By the way, I apologise for another Kiwi, PhantomWolf, miss-spelling your name. It's a dreadful habit that I've been unable to talk him out of. ;D ] I have trouble understanding why people get emotional and post in that state. The biggest advantage of this type of forum is that there is no pressure to reply instantly. We can take a deep breath, count to ten, take a walk, or give up until tomorrow. Because I have chronic fatigue syndrome my mental state fluctuates between mild depression and happiness and my brain sometimes turns into a cabbage, so I'm often useless at thinking quickly or clearly. I have long enjoyed a good debate and the best have always been those I lost (because I couldn't help learning something) and I was thrilled to get on the internet a few years ago and find places like this where I can simply look and learn or join in as I please. But getting emotional is a very silly thing to do. Our emotions can blind us to common sense. I tried, without success, to find the post where either Jason or JayUtah mentioned something about us all being different and thinking differently. This is, to me, one the most important things we can use to direct our lives, and is proved by the fact that if Moses were a committee the Israelites would still be in Egypt. For far too many years I lived under the misapprehension that everyone else thought like I did. As far as can recall, nobody taught me otherwise and it caused me much trouble until I learnt better. Nowadays I mostly enjoy the gereat diversity in the world, and feel sorry for those who are prejudiced against those who have a point of view that is different to their own. I'm one of the few people who invites Jehovah's Witnesses in for a chat, and have even been thanked for changing their minds on a certain thing, though I usually I never get far with them.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2006 13:15:10 GMT -4
I have several problems with this page. First of all, all the definitions for species assume that evolution was the mechanism that created them in the first place. A sort of circular logic was involved in creating these definitions. Second, the examples named do not appear to be examples of speciation in the wild, but examples of speciation created through experimentation. In other words, they are as useful as evidence of natural evolution as are the various dog and horse breeds in the world. I was laughing a bit at the author's acknowledgement that most biologists he questioned believe that speciation has occured and been documented but can't actually name any examples. In other words, it was a matter of faith for them.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 30, 2006 16:24:53 GMT -4
First of all, all the definitions for species assume that evolution was the mechanism that created them in the first place. A sort of circular logic was involved in creating these definitions. What other mechanisms do you suggest? Since there's about a ton of observation for evolution, whether you're aware of it or not, it is a simpler explanation than . . . magic? But horse/dog breeds can still all interbreed, even after thousands of years, whereas Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. Which you have to admit is "the wild," even if it's a species introduced by man to a new location. See also chichlid fish. It's basic logic. They observe evolution (why should it stop at any level?) happen all the time. They are aware that most speciation events should, logically, take longer than a human lifetime, especially if such artificial borders as "not in captivity" are put up (a speciation event's a speciation event; they were one and became two, whether in the wild or not), and they can look at the sodding enormous fossil record, which makes it even easier to trace speciation. Whereas you have what, exactly?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2006 17:31:12 GMT -4
What other mechanisms do you suggest? Since there's about a ton of observation for evolution, whether you're aware of it or not, it is a simpler explanation than . . . magic? Not magic. I don't believe God breaks any physical laws or even can break physical laws. Instead I beleive that He has a much deeper understanding of physical laws and how to manipulate them. This greater understanding and use of techniques that we do not have access to merely appears to be supernatural to us. My objections are primarily to Common Descent and so-called macro-evolution. I can understand how it might be possible that gradual changes over lots of time might create different species, but I don't think that's how it actually happened. It's possible to compare fossils and say "this looks much like a horse - it must be an ancestor of a horse" but is it actually an ancestor? I can go to the zoo today and see animals that look very much like humans and that share 90% or more of our DNA, but despite the similarities chimps are not ancestors of humans, and no scientist claims such today because they know chimps are contemporary with humans. If that were not the case - say, if the modern chimp had lived and died out millions of years ago, is there any reason a scientist today discovering a chimp fossil wouldn't look at the similarities between us and them and declare "aha! This must be one of humanity's distant ancestors."
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 30, 2006 21:16:56 GMT -4
Your knowledge of hominid evolution is similar to moonman's knowledge of thermodynamics.
Given the flippant manner in which you dismissed my informant reports regarding human sexuality, I'm reluctant to bother wasting the finger movements to type anything else to you...
And yet I'm compelled by my OWN moral code to persist.
Chimps are not ancestors of humans, neither are bonobo, neither are gorillas. Unravelling the relationships between them has been a boom industry among grad students for the last decade, and textbooks I read in college have already been supersceded with better understanding. It's an evolving science, pun intended.
Try this: Google "australopithecus" images. What you will find is images of an ancestral ape, face and brain like a chimp but with fully upright posture.
I'll try to post some pix tomorrow for discussion, I can't really do it from this computer.
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Aug 30, 2006 21:52:29 GMT -4
On a lighter note, I think I read somewhere in this thread that Apollo Gnomon is agnostic (apologies if I got that wrong, but it doesn't matter for my humorous anecdote)
The topic of being agnostic came up on the Colbert report about a month ago. A book called "Misquoting Jesus" I think, and the authour said he is agnostic, to which Colbert responded:
"Agnostic? Isn't that just an Athiest without balls?"
I found that hysterical!
Interesting thread, so many personal things said here. Gill, I had no idea you were Pagan, and had no idea Jay was so deeply religious either.
Jason, do you post over at BAUT?
L8R
Pete
Edit: Is Jay on vacation??
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 30, 2006 23:30:15 GMT -4
Gill, I had no idea you were Pagan, and had no idea Jay was so deeply religious either. Well, I don't talk about it much at BAUT, for some reason! But I wonder how all those "all religious people are idiots" types would respond if they knew Jay's religious. I know my faith doesn't tend to impress them much.
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Aug 31, 2006 2:13:38 GMT -4
Faith is faith
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 1, 2006 13:29:33 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 1, 2006 13:42:01 GMT -4
ditto, since physical law is part of Him, a rational order that is a mirror of him. God can't contradict himself.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 1, 2006 16:15:23 GMT -4
I don't. I have evidence that gravity exists; since I do, I don't need faith.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 1, 2006 17:01:35 GMT -4
I don't. I have evidence that gravity exists; since I do, I don't need faith. Yes, exactly. That's as far as I can go with blind belief in things I can't explain. I have faith in gravity and it has yet to fail me. Yet I honestly can say I don't understand gravity. I let others explain it, and have faith that their explanations are valid. True comprehension is outside my knowledge base.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Sept 1, 2006 17:28:35 GMT -4
I don't. I have evidence that gravity exists; since I do, I don't need faith. Yes, exactly. That's as far as I can go with blind belief in things I can't explain. I have faith in gravity and it has yet to fail me. Yet I honestly can say I don't understand gravity. I let others explain it, and have faith that their explanations are valid. True comprehension is outside my knowledge base. By gravity, do we mean curvature in space-time? ;D
|
|