Originally posted by LemonJellolook can you explain it or can you not? its not difficult to understand. i made the assertion with references that the human conscience can only really be understood in biblical terms, an assertion that i am prepared to substantiate, it is very clear! you stated that this was nonsense and based on ignorance and a whole host of other baseless assertions, so either explain it in evolutionary terms or admit, publicly that you cannot. its not a big deal if you don't know, but as far as i can determine all that you have stated is that the bible is mince and that there are species that are mutually beneficent, how you get from that to the faculty of human conscience i do not know, for you have not stated how or why it has arisen. and actually i thank you for the small but rather significant admittance that a purely materialistic view of the origin of life is highly improbable, i would go as far as to say, impossible.
You seem confused on the course the discussion has taken. You basically claimed before that the human moral faculty can only be understood in terms of biblical descriptions. I repeat that this claim of yours is utterly inane. First, a literal empirical interpretation of biblical genesiac accounts is incredibly silly, and these accounts -- while offerin ...[text shortened]... 's much more likely that the eternal invisible sky man created us out of some dust and a rib.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYeah, I could take a lot of time explaining things to ignorant persons on these boards such as yourself, but why should I when you could simply read the book I recommended? Are you allergic to book learning? If you are looking for a plausible account in evolutionary terms of the development of many major aspects of the human moral faculty, that is what the book will give. And this will defeat your earlier claim, which was my point. Provided, it will take a couple hundred pages or more to make his case. What do you want, a couple quick paragraphs that make the whole case? Are you not very familiar with how well-supported scientific inquiry works, or something?
look can you explain it or can you not? its not difficult to understand. i made the assertion with references that the human conscience can only really be understood in biblical terms, an assertion that i am prepared to substantiate, it is very clear! you stated that this was nonsense and based on ignorance and a whole host of other baseless asser istic view of the origin of life is highly improbable, i would go as far as to say, impossible.
Look, the basic idea is as I already described. First, you have to understand natural selection (which you clearly do not, given that you think the deliverances of natural selection lead invariably to only psychologically egoist creatures -- this is your ridiculous caricature of an understanding because you are not willing to educate yourself). Then you have to understand how natural selection may be expected to work on the helping behaviors (including at least kin selection, possibly group selection although I think that is not as important, mutualism (cooperation), and both direct and indirect reciprocity). Then you just have to understand that it is very plausible that the moral faculty we have arose as a mechanism for regulating the helping behaviors, based on natural selection working on ancestors such as ours.
If you want, when I have more time (maybe next week, I don't know), I can at least try to explain in detail a couple of main points on which you seem to be quite ignorant: 1. that natural selection working on ancestors such as ours should not be expected to lead to psychological egoism and 2. that even appeal to only simple ideas in kin selection, mutualism, and reciprocity is sufficient to explain several of the dispositional human aspects that you naively think could only come from some god.
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJellothanks a simple 'i don't know', or ' i cannot explain it simply', 'or its based on assumption and premise', 'or ,' there is no tangible evidence, however' would have sufficed!
Yeah, I could take a lot of time explaining things to ignorant persons on these boards such as yourself, but why should I when you could simply read the book I recommended? Are you allergic to book learning? If you are looking for a plausible account in evolutionary terms of the development of many major aspects of the human moral faculty, that is what everal of the dispositional human aspects that you naively think could only come from some god.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWow, you're truly a waste of time. In that case, forget about my proposed project of explaining things in detail for your edification. It's amazing how averse some of you bible-thumpers are to any sort of education. I leave it open to you to inquire into such sources as the one I recommended.
thanks a simple 'i dont know', would have sufficed!
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloi actually now realize that you cannot explain it, for if you could , then surely you would have, so yes please your non explanation and your insults are probably best kept to themselves, but just for the record, you have not provided one scrap of evidence to your assertions that you have read any biblical passages, you have consistently failed to provide any explanation, in evolutionary terms for the existence of conscience, your main body of evidence simply consists of vague assertions of the ignorance of others, and the very accusation that you level against others, that they are a waste of time, is self evident in your own failure to provide any evidence to the contrary for your assertions, obviously its time to try to engage someone else who may have some insight,
Wow, you're truly a waste of time. In that case, forget about my proposed project of explaining things in detail for your edification. It's amazing how averse some of you bible-thumpers are to any sort of education. I leave it open to you to inquire into such sources as the one I recommended.
i find it incredulous that you claim to be educated, yet you know practically nothing of the most printed book in the history of humanity, it is truly pathetic in the original sense of the word and reeks of hypocrisy, but it is after all a very winsome gift, the ability to see ourselves as others see us.
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's like I said: you're a waste of time. Keep sticking your head in the sand. Yep, the human moral faculty came about through some magical fruit in a garden with talking snakes.
i actually now realize that you cannot explain it, for if you could , then surely you would have, so yes please your non explanation and your insults are probably best kept to themselves, but just for the record, you have not provided one scrap of evidence to your assertions that you have read any biblical passages, you have consistently failed to pr ...[text shortened]... pocrisy, but it is after all a very winsome gift, the ability to see ourselves as others see us.
You're entitled, on some level, to your own opinion no matter how harebrained it is. But don't pretend like you have any basis for claiming that such things cannot be understood apart from the bible, particularly when you don't actually have the slightest willingness to even investigate other non-biblical accounts. Get serious.
By the way, I almost like it better when you lift stuff off the internet and pass it off as your own. At least in that case your post contains, in spots, a few well-formed sentences instead of your typical run-on.
Originally posted by LemonJellowrong, i do not know if it escaped your attention, perhaps your own genius blinded you to the fact, who can tell? i am the one looking for the explanation. does that seem like someone who has failed to consider other non-biblical accounts? now you are getting delusional and incoherent. may i suggest that you take up knitting or some other craft with which you could focus your attention, it may help your concentration in the long term and prevent these lapses. as for me, i am presently trying to find the answers to my questions, so if you don't mind i got better things to do than trade insults with you.
It's like I said: you're a waste of time. Keep sticking your head in the sand. Yep, the human moral faculty came about through some magical fruit in a garden with talking snakes.
You're entitled, on some level, to your own opinion no matter how harebrained it is. But don't pretend like you have any basis for claiming that such things cannot be under ...[text shortened]... e your post contains, in spots, a few well-formed sentences instead of your typical run-on.
As for lifting things from others, i do not claim, to have originated all my own thoughts, did you for example formulate your own thoughts with regard to your opinions on evolutionary science, or were they not influenced by others? interestingly i was just reading an article by Scottish philosopher John Stuart mills, on genius, the essence of which he states that originality equates to genius, the forming of new truths, as a musician forms new melodies from a finite and clearly defined series of musical notes. i read it when i was fourteen and had a fondness for it since. quite clearly i am not a genius, many of my thoughts i have taken it upon trust as being true. perhaps you are different, you are a genius, you are able to formulate new thoughts and ideas, if not then clearly you too have assimilated the thoughts and ideas of others into your thinking, the very same thing that you would accuse others of, so please, Ive had enough hypocrisy and insults for one day, i must try to ascertain the idea behind the reasoning and that means looking elsewhere - cya.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei am the one looking for the explanation.
wrong, i do not know if it escaped your attention, perhaps your own genius blinded you to the fact, who can tell? i am the one looking for the explanation. does that seem like someone who has failed to consider other non-biblical accounts? now you are getting delusional and incoherent. may i suggest that you take up knitting or some other craft wi , i must try to ascertain the idea behind the reasoning and that means looking elsewhere - cya.
No, you're the one spouting off that human moral faculty cannot be explained outside of biblical interpretation and that you're sorry but that's the way it is. Remember (page 5)? That despite the fact that you apparently know less than jack about any serious attempts at explaining such a faculty; and despite that it's clear you have no real interest in exploring the topic anyway.
cya.
Well, take care.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziHere is a link if you are interested.
the first day is several billion years.
then the earth is created. before the stars and the sun. and then time throws the anchor and starts to stop. from the first day meaning several billions to 1 billion, to several millions, to several thousands when man is created.
not to mention the order of things is way off.
i am not calling that scientist s ...[text shortened]... igious groups because there are enough dawkinses who scored grants in real scientifical domains.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
Here is a taste. "Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exiting about the last few years in comsmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and the time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says, "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.
The Torah does not say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we are sending information for six days, would we recieve that information as six days? No. We would recieve that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.
The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian. I'm making a scientific claim. I did not pull these numbers out of a hat. That is why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step by step. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day by day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the precepetion of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. THis rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology", a textbook that is used literally around the world.
The calculations come out as follows.
-The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, veiwed from the "beginning of time persepctive" But the duration from our persepctive was 8 billion years.
- The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours but from our perspecitve it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
- The thrid day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years
- The fourth day lasted one billion years
- The fifth day lasted one-half billion years.
- The sixth day lasted one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?
But there is more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of these days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day by day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
Originally posted by whodeyincredibly interesting, thanks.
Here is a link if you are interested.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
Here is a taste. "Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exiting about the last few years in com ...[text shortened]... ive you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
Originally posted by whodeyof course the 6 days never meant really 6 days. though there are still YECS who really believe they are literal days. moving on.
Here is a link if you are interested.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
Here is a taste. "Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exiting about the last few years in com ...[text shortened]... ive you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
the real problem is not with the duration of those 6 days but what happened in each. the order in which creation unfolded is wrong. if your theory holds and the third day lasted 2 billions and the 4th half, doesn't that mean that the plants lasted a full billion years without the sun?
doesn't it mean the earth is the oldest thing in the universe? because nothing was invented before it, not even the stars? the birds were invented before any land animals. after the birds came insects. all animals were vegetarians.
and you still claim to be making science?