1. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    09 Jul '09 07:40
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Thanks, Thomas, for this admission.

    I think I've got my answer - nobody budged an inch in the last 5 years at least!

    I wonder if anybody received new insights in any of the other threads?

    Or do we all "preach to the converted"? (No pun intended!)

    What a frightening waste of energy!
    I’ve gotten lots of insights in these threads, from many people (including—and maybe especially—from those with whom I’ve disagreed).

    With regard to the OP, I have become more and more convinced that people have difficulty wrapping their heads around the idea of a totality—that, by definition, has no edge or boundary, or anything before or beyond it. In attempting to “press beyond” the totality, philosophically speaking, they end of reverting to ideas that offer comfortable analogies from within the totality—e.g., the idea of some empty space in which there existed a distinct being who then created something in that empty space.

    But the idea of a totality includes all time and space (and whatever other dimensions of that totality there might be), as well as whatever substances, forces and patterns that are manifest within that totality (however they are manifested).

    Such a totality is a gestalt comprised of figures/forms and the implicate ground vis-à-vis we are able to detect them (individually, as with “tree”; or grouped, as with “forest” ). We never perceive the ground itself; it is implicate.

    Once one does wrap one’s head around the idea of such a totality, the “religious question”, so to speak, becomes whether or not the totality is in some way “intentional” in manifesting—from, in, and of itself—the various figures/forms. At one time, I would have answered with a “Yes” (although that “yes” was not well thought out); more lately, I have answered “No” (but I am not presently convinced that that “no” is any better thought-out than the prior “yes” ).

    What I do rest upon is that the totality is coherent, and that our consciousness, though it may not be exhaustive of the totality, is coherent with the totality as it is manifest (or else we likely would not have survived as a species).

    In the last 5 years (yes, I’ve been here almost that long), I have moved from being a panentheist (within a Christian paradigm) to being a non-aligned non-dualist generally (if you don’t get that, think “Zen” and you’ll be close to the mark).
  2. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34570
    09 Jul '09 08:49
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I’ve gotten lots of insights in these threads, from many people (including—and maybe especially—from those with whom I’ve disagreed).

    With regard to the OP.......

    In the last 5 years (yes, I’ve been here almost that long), I have moved from being a pan[b]en
    theist (within a Christian paradigm) to being a non-aligned non-dualist generally (if you don’t get that, think “Zen” and you’ll be close to the mark).[/b]
    Hi vistesd,

    Thanks for this input and insight. I must admit that several "opposing" posts have also given me food for thought.

    Firstly, the abbreviation for OP escapes me .. please help? (Although I could possibly deduce it from your later comments)

    Secondly, to know more about you I went to your home page. Rather a secretive fellow (or fellowess) aren't you?

    Thirdly, since you are prepared to reveal a little of your spiritual journey, here's a synopsis of mine: background strictly calvinistic, graduated to pentecostalism, graduated out of it to something deeper. I sometimes cringe at some of the statements that certain fundamentalist Christians make on this site...

    Being a career scientist I held a mainline evolutionary view for many years. This was changed to a theistic evolution on conversion with which I was very uncomfortable. After reading the book "In Six Days" I became a convinced six-day creationist - a much maligned species on RHP!!

    😀

    Having said that, I am no longer prepared to debate the larger issue with dyed-in-the-wool atheistic evolutionists, (the issues are just too broad and far apart) although I welcome the opportunity to depate this subjec with Christian theistic evolutionists, whose position is (unfortunately) inherently untenable and contradictory...

    In peace

    CJ
  3. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    09 Jul '09 11:42
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    umm have you looked at the difference between an aquatic deer and a whale? and yet Andrew you ask why this is absurd.
    …have you looked at the difference between an aquatic deer and a whale?
    ….


    Have you? They are both mammals and I presume they both swim -so what’s the problem?
  4. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    09 Jul '09 11:49
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i have stated in a private conversation with Andrew, that if you are to take the very basic premise for the evolutionary hypothesis, in that its main function is to pass the genetic code from one generation to the next, then, it appears to me, that in order to do that, heterosexuality would be the natural state of affairs, would it not? therefore i ...[text shortened]... ure, but the laboratory, perhaps in your wisdom you could explain this seeming anomaly of yours!
    Have a read of this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
  5. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    09 Jul '09 12:079 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i have stated in a private conversation with Andrew, that if you are to take the very basic premise for the evolutionary hypothesis, in that its main function is to pass the genetic code from one generation to the next, then, it appears to me, that in order to do that, heterosexuality would be the natural state of affairs, would it not? therefore i ...[text shortened]... ure, but the laboratory, perhaps in your wisdom you could explain this seeming anomaly of yours!
    That is simply not true and I had already pointed that out to you!
    It is NOT ‘natural’ for evolution to produce a result that ALWAYS maximises the chances of passing on the genes because, as I already have pointed out, evolution is a blind unintelligent sloppy process.

    In fact, it would be INCONSISTANT with the evolution theory if all the results we see today ARE ALWAYS perfect for maximises the chances of passing on the genes!!! -how could that possibly be when evolution is supposed to be a completely blind unintelligent sloppy process!!!?
    -some inconsistencies should be inevitable from such a blind unintelligent sloppy process, yes? -else this would be a sign that an intelligence was involved!!!

    In fact, for that reason, any such inconsistencies are in fact evidence for evolution! -and there are many examples of such inconsistencies such as the fact that the blood vessels for our retinas are placed stupidly in front of the retinas where they partly block incoming light!

    Reminder of our conversation:

    “….
    yes but if we take the very basis of the evolutionary hypothesis as our guiding principle….

    ….then, because evolution is a blind sloppy process, it often produces imperfect and inconsistent results. For example, it put the blood vessels for our retinas in front of the retinas etc. Homosexuality could be one of those so called “blunders of evolution” and there could be many ways it could came about.
    ONE way could be as a result of certain genes that each give a survival advantage on their own without causing homosexuality but when a new offspring is produced there is a chance that that offspring would get a certain combination of those genes that DOES cause homosexuality! (or at least make it more likely to be triggered by environmental factors) -I believe there was some data supporting that hypothesis but I am not saying that hypothesis is definitely true because it is yet to be proven. Evolution, being a blind sloppy process, would very rarely (if ever) give the result of an absolute ‘perfect’ design that maximises the chances of passing on the genes in every way without any design flaws and there are many examples of that!
    …”

    Therefore, it would NOT be the most "natural state" for EVERYBODY to be heterosexuals! -only MOST people to be so!
    In fact, judging purely by the fact that homosexuality is wide spread throughout the animal kingdom, it is almost inevitable that some humans will be homosexuals! -thus it could be argued purely on that premise that it would be ”unnatural” if there were NO homosexuals!

    Let me point out the flaw in your reasoning in another way:

    Debilitating birth defects due to genetic defects are “natural“ -yes?
    Does evolution stop them from occurring? -answer, no -because it is a totally blind sloppy unintelligent process thus it would inevitably allow such things.
    Therefore, according to the evolution theory, the most “natural” state for all living things to be in is not necessarily the one that maximises the chances of survival and passing on their genes for there would inevitably be various imperfections in the state of at least some of those living things.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    09 Jul '09 13:321 edit
    If homosexuality among humans gains more and more prevalancy, will the male anus evolve into a vagina and facilitate reproduction ?

    Anyone ?
  7. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    09 Jul '09 14:59
    Originally posted by jaywill
    If homosexuality among humans gains more and more prevalancy, will the male anus evolve into a vagina and facilitate reproduction ?

    Anyone ?
    …If homosexuality among humans gains more and more prevalency
    ….


    Any reason why it should?

    …will the male anus evolve into a vagina and facilitate reproduction ?
    ...


    No -for evolution to work and produce a large change there has to be credible and possible intermediate forms that don’t require absurdly unlikely mutations and with each mutation giving immediate survival advantages.
  8. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    09 Jul '09 15:142 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…If homosexuality among humans gains more and more prevalency
    ….


    Any reason why it should?

    …will the male anus evolve into a vagina and facilitate reproduction ?
    ...


    No -for evolution to work and produce a large change there has to be credible and possible intermediate forms that don’t require absurdly unlikely mutations and with each mutation giving immediate survival advantages.[/b]
    I didn't say that there would be no intermediary forms in the process. I would expect there to be.

    I focused on the end result some many millions of years from now. I think you jumped to the conclusion that I meant SUDDENLY evolved and not in the classic model GRADUALLY evolved.

    And I am not sure that it is more absurd then if we were present millions of years ago and predicted that a light sensative scratch on the face of some creature would eventually "evolve" into an eyeball.

    Now it does seem to me to be a funny thing with some Evolutionists. When I use my imagination to apply the evolutionary concept to a possibility, I get a retort of it being absurd and nonsensical.

    But I am really not convinced that my imaginative predictions are all the more far-fetched than some of the things Evos are asking me to believe.

    So, if Evolution is true, how can you be so sure that the male anal cavity will not (through many intermediaries) evolve into something like the female vigina for reproduction, given that homosexual behavior among men carries forward for a few million years ?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jul '09 15:17
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Joseph confirms himself as the most stupidly gullible man ever to walk the earth.
    I must point out a few things regarding that accusation.
    1. We only have the word of some gospel writers regarding that story, and there is no indication as far as I am aware of that Joseph believed it. There are many other possibilities, including that Joseph was responsible and made up the story himself to pacify the parents. However I personally think the whole story was made up after Jesus' death to satisfy various OT prophesies.
    2. There are plenty of gullible people when it comes to pregnancy. Just today we heard on the radio how someone was suing a hotel because he believes his thirteen year old daughter got pregnant while swimming in the hotel pool.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jul '09 15:21
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Having said that, I am no longer prepared to debate the larger issue with dyed-in-the-wool atheistic evolutionists, (the issues are just too broad and far apart) although I welcome the opportunity to depate this subjec with Christian theistic evolutionists, whose position is (unfortunately) inherently untenable and contradictory...

    In peace

    CJ
    I realize you don't want to debate the subject with me (as I am an atheist), but I am still curious why you believe in the six day version -is it a matter of faith or evidence, and why you do not wish to debate the subject.
    Regarding the faith/evidence question, do you believe that there is evidence for evolution (even though it didn't happen) or that scientists simply got it all wrong?
  11. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    09 Jul '09 19:042 edits
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I didn't say that there would be no intermediary forms in the process. I would expect there to be.

    I focused on the end result some many millions of years from now. I think you jumped to the conclusion that I meant SUDDENLY evolved and not in the classic model GRADUALLY evolved.

    And I am not sure that it is more absurd then if we were present million roduction, given that homosexual behavior among men carries forward for a few million years ?
    …And I am not sure that it is more absurd then if we were present millions of years ago and predicted that a light sensative scratch on the face of some creature would eventually "evolve" into an eyeball.

    ….


    What is so absurd about a process consisting of a succession of perfectly credible and none-miraculous small changes over a large time span? Which particular one of those small changes do you find absurd? -if you don’t find any particular one of those small steps absurd then why would you find the whole series of those small steps absurd?

    …So, if Evolution is true, how can you be so sure that the male anal cavity will not (through many intermediaries) evolve into something like the female vigina for reproduction, given that homosexual behaviour among men carries forward for a few million years ?

    ...


    Like you said -there would have intermediate forms.
    BUT, for evolution to work, they would not only have to merely be any sort of intermediate forms, they would have to be a succession of intermediate forms with, just as has been proven possible with the evolution of the eye, each one giving an IMMIDIATE survival advantage over the one that came before it else it wouldn’t be credible for evolution to produce it -so can you imagine such a succession of intermediate forms in this case and, if so, what would each form be and what IMMIDIATE survival advantage would each one have? -I certainly cannot imagine such a string of intermediate forms in this case so I suspect it wouldn’t be credible for evolution to produce such a thing for that reason.

    This shows the limits of evolution; some forms that can be imagined really cannot evolve because there are no credible evolutionary pathways to those forms (even if those forms would give immense survival advantage! -and it doesnt matter how much survival advantage they would give!) while there are credible evolutionary pathways to other forms and this is partly why evolution would rarely (if ever) give a form that is PERFECT for survival and reproduction and forms that are imperfect are thus evidence that what produced those forms is an unintelligent process. -this can be taken as evidence for evolution but only if you assume the only ‘alternative’ to evolution is intelligent design -imperfect living forms is certainly evidence against intelligent design! (unless you assume the designer to have flawed and limited intelligence!).
  12. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    09 Jul '09 19:305 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…And I am not sure that it is more absurd then if we were present millions of years ago and predicted that a light sensative scratch on the face of some creature would eventually "evolve" into an eyeball.

    ….


    What is so absurd about a process consisting of a succession of perfectly credible and none-miraculous small changes over a large ...[text shortened]... nce against intelligent design! (unless you assume the designer to have flawed intelligence!).[/b]
    ===========================
    What is so absurd about a process consisting of a succession of perfectly credible and none-miraculous small changes over a large time span? Which particular one of those small changes do you find absurd? -if you don’t find any particular one of those small steps absurd then why would you find the whole series of those small steps absurd?
    =================================


    The question I asked you was why do you count as so terribly unlikely that the same process could not modify an digestive system, including the anal cavity, into a reproductive system, given millions of years.

    To my example, you seemed to recoil at its absurdity.


    ================================

    me:
    …So, if Evolution is true, how can you be so sure that the male anal cavity will not (through many intermediaries) evolve into something like the female vigina for reproduction, given that homosexual behaviour among men carries forward for a few million years ?

    you:

    Like you said -there would have intermediate forms.
    BUT, for evolution to work, they would not only have to merely be any sort of intermediate forms, they would have to be a succession of intermediate forms with, just as has been proven possible with the evolution of the eye, each one giving an IMMIDIATE survival advantage over the one that came before it
    ====================================


    Firstly, these successive intermediary forms, in the case of the eye, are mostly in your imagination, I think.

    I don't think you have each stage of transition on record. Secondly, if scratch to eyeball is a possibility what is so unusual about anus to vigina as a possibility?

    I mean Evolution has done fantastical things, supposedly.

    ==================================
    else it wouldn’t be credible for evolution to produce it -so can you imagine such a succession of intermediate forms in this case and,
    ==================================


    I think that you have to "imagine" intermediary forms in any case.

    For example, there is not way to arrange all known species and types of ape to reconstruct an relationship of descent to a human. You have to use your imagination. And artists have fueled this imagination with drawings depicting what Evolutionists want to see.

    I think it would likely be impossible to have all the recorded successive steps in any regard. So the imagination is used.

    We're talking about prediction. You couldn't possibly predict the future intermediary surviving stages between anus and vigina for a scores of millions of years into the future.

    I think the devoted Evolutionists should say "Its possible" if they wanted to be consistent IMO.

    =====================================
    if so, what would each form be and what IMMIDIATE survival advantage would each one have?
    ======================================


    Looking into the future it would be very hard to imagine.

    If you could go back in a time machine 100 million years, knowing only the past and the present, how could you predict what an organism would need to survive?

    ===========================
    -I certainly cannot imagine such a string of intermediate forms in this case so I suspect it wouldn’t be credible for evolution to produce such a thing for that reason.
    ===========================


    Okay. But are you saying that if you had been there 100 million years ago you could predict that a fish crawling up on land would be a an ancestor by way of descent to a bald eagle flying in the air ?

    Would you have been able to imagine the intermediary steps that evolution would have to accomodate for to make that transition ?

    ================================
    This shows the limits of evolution; some forms that can be imagined really cannot evolve because there are no credible evolutionary pathways to those forms while there are credible evolutionary pathways to other forms and this is partly why evolution would rarely (if ever) give a form that is PERFECT for survival and reproduction and forms that are imperfect are thus evidence that what produced those forms is an unintelligent process.
    ===============================


    It sounds to me like if you could have been around 100 million years ago you could predict pretty well what evolution would produce in the future - "credible" models.

    I think if you really have confidence in the power of the process, you should say that anus to vigina could take place given enough time. Maybe not, but maybe it could.

    Point is that we've supposedly seen things equally fantastical.

    =======================
    -this can be taken as evidence for evolution but only if you assume the only ‘alternative’ to evolution is intelligent design -imperfect living forms is certainly evidence against intelligent design! (unless you assume the designer to have flawed intelligence!).
    ==============================


    This complaint of imperfect design doesn't bother me too much. That is because a non-optimal design is still a design. And I predict that you are about to change the subject a little.
  13. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34570
    09 Jul '09 19:39
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I realize you don't want to debate the subject with me (as I am an atheist), but I am still curious why you believe in the six day version -is it a matter of faith or evidence, and why you do not wish to debate the subject.
    Regarding the faith/evidence question, do you believe that there is evidence for evolution (even though it didn't happen) or that scientists simply got it all wrong?
    OK, twhitehead, seeing you come from the Mother City, I'll give you a three of my "big picture" reasons on condition that you merely take cognisance of them and not try to shoot them down!

    #1: It is NOT true that "facts speak for themselves". All facts need to be interpreted, and the interpretation depends on the particular frame of reference of the individual. For example, all the observed facts in the physical world, e.g. the fossil record, geology, genetic science, etc etc, can be explained by both of the Theories of Origin. Take the Flood: many geological formations like the Grand Canyon can be explained by either a little water over a long time or a lot of water over a little time. And so on.

    #2: In the book I mentioned "In Six Days" (New Holland Publishers, 2001) there are short article by 50 well known scientists that state why they were forced to the conclusiion that the earth is young and consequently a 6 day creation. Their arguments convinced me, and I am not going to repeat them here.

    #3: This is my main reason: I did not reach God by sound arguments, but He found me and overwhelmed me. It was AFTER that, that I came to the realisation that the whole thing made sense, and that fath in Christ was inherently congruent with creationism. It is for that reason that I don't want to debate the issue of what makes sense and what not. Certain things will make perfect sense for you in YOUR world view, but they seem folly to me. (and, of course, vice versa). hence such arguments are not only unwinnable, but like comparing apples with orangutangs.

    Nuff said.

    In peace,

    CJ
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    09 Jul '09 19:392 edits
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Have a read of this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
    its a flawed argument noobster for there is lots of animal behaviour that when you begin to equate it with human behaviour the consequences are disastrous, especially sexual behaviour! for example multiple partners, one need not harp on about sexually transmitted diseases, breakup of family and the emotional turmoil that ensues, abortions, profusion of single parent families, etc etc etc
  15. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    09 Jul '09 19:43
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    its a flawed argument noobster for there is lots of animal behaviour that when you begin to equate it with human behaviour the consequences are disastrous, especially sexual behaviour!
    You said homosexuality was unnatural, Andrew and i have just demonstrated it isn't. Other than that as usual i don't know what you're talking about.
Back to Top