As I recall, you're much more likely to solve a Rubik's Cube while blindfolded than for the elements needed for Life to come into the same place at the same moment out of Chaos. (Let alone assemble themselves >,<) (Side note:Odds are, if you started a scrambled Rubik's Cube 20 billion years ago, making one random twist a second, you'd be most likely still at it.) Bacteria are painfully complex, and I seriously doubt that a primordial ooze could produce them. The question is, can life exist on a more simple scale, capable of reproduction, etc, and with much luck eventually form a single bacteria or so?... I'm not very sure.
If there ever was a proto-lifeform, it would long since have been eaten by bacteria... And it'd probly take divine intervention for even something like that to sprout from Chaos. Just my two cents.
Btw, I think Piff is cute.
-Moriar
Nice slip o' info into the comic..
-
ZOMBIE USER 12759
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:26 am
Well, the presupposed life-form wouldn't have been eaten, given that it was the first living thing. However, I agree with you on principle if not on semantics. There are many ways things could have turned out differently for the universe, and I think that the fact that they did not flys in the face of all logic, faith excepted. In case your curious, I'm not a creationist, and will in fact be a biologist shortly. I happen to find evolution a far more compelling argument for the existance of a creator than anything else. I'd be happy to explain why if you want, but I'm not going to type it out otherwise. That'd be a kind of long post.
-
Jess Ragan
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Here's something else I've wondered...
Evolution just isn't logical in some instances. Look at the bat for instance. If the creature really needed wings to escape its predators or catch food, there's no way it would be able to survive for the millions of years necessary to grow them. It's also just as unlikely that those wings would become aerodynamically sound by chance. Look at how long it took humans to unlock the secrets of flight... it just doesn't seem possible that these same secrets could be stumbled upon after a series of random genetic mutations. When all this is considered, why is it so irrational to think that an infinite being, rather than a series of nearly impossible coincidences, could have created the universe?
JR
JR
Re: Nice slip o' info into the comic..
Most likely since you won't notice you've succeededMoriar wrote:As I recall, you're much more likely to solve a Rubik's Cube while blindfolded than for the elements needed for Life to come into the same place at the same moment out of Chaos. (Let alone assemble themselves >,<) (Side note:Odds are, if you started a scrambled Rubik's Cube 20 billion years ago, making one random twist a second, you'd be most likely still at it.)
I did a quick search but has anyone a comprehensive text about that calculation?
And yes, numbers in that height are mindtwisting. But did you know that 18 gramm of water contain 6,02 x 10^23 Molecules? I don't know the assumptions made in the quoted calculation but regarding nature, most facts are stunning.
For example, a professor in experimental physics asked us to estimate the number of atoms you've inherited from, lets say, Newton. If all his atoms would've been evenly distributed in one meter of soil all around the world, everone would posses some 10 atoms that once belonged to Newtons body. (Not sure with the exact value ...)
CJ
-
ZOMBIE USER 12759
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:26 am
That's the neat thing. Evolution doesn't "create" anything by magic, it just selects things at random and the ones that are more suited to live in the place that they do pass on their traits. Over time, things become more and more like the ideal creature for that enviroment. I would suggest that bats began as leaping creatures that were "selected" for their jumping ability, perhaps to catch their insect prey more effectively. Over time, features that would be useful to that end, such as arms with a large, air trapping membrane to enhance one's ability to glide, untill - BOOM - you've got something that flies. I'm not saying that there was no intelligent design guiding this process, and I do indeed believe that there was. However, I have no doubt that evolution is for real. We can see good evidence for it in the wild, and we have in fact observed it for real in several laboratory tests. The most dramatic of these (not really in a laboratory) is the emergence of new strains of bacteria that resist antibiotics. This fits well with evolution, since any mutation that leads a bacteria to resist antibiotics would indeed greatly increase its chances of survival, and does not in my opinion smack of divine intervention. I see no reason that any God worth worshiping would create more effective diseases to cause pain and suffering.
-
Random George
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Lawrence, KS, USA
evolution
this is how it works...a small mammal, kind of like a mouse, lives in trees. this animal catches bugs and escapes predators by hopping from branch to branch. out of the millions of possibilities for mutations, one is born with extra skin between its sides and its forelegs. that small mammal gets a little longer hop-time between branches, and its offspring are a little more fit. now, at the same time, another similar small mammal is born with a mutation that gives it unusually strong legs--perhaps a muscle inserts at a slightly different point. it can get away from its predators a little more quickly that a normal small mammal. its offspring are just a little more fit.
now, those offspring that express the mutations have more babies that get the holy grail of biology:offspring that reproduce. so there are more of them, and their kids are a little healthier. the small mammals with strong legs also have an advantage out of the trees, on the ground...so, they're able to forage farther from the tree. and again, that holy grail of fitter offspring. the small mammals with the extra flaps of skin? they are able to move higher into the trees, and leap from tree to tree without going to the ground. fitter offspring. the niche of a species is not just defined by the world around it, but also by the capabilities of the organism.
so, we fast forward a hundred generations or so. now you have a diminishing population of small mammals with normal legs and no flaps of skin being outcompeted (getting less food and more attention from the predators) by their cousins. now, the strong-legs are only occasionally able to successfully interbreed with the skin-flaps, and those offspring are more often than not sterile. now that all the mammals living in the tops of the trees have skin flaps, the advantage goes to the small mammals whose skin flaps are larger, better attached, or in some other way provide a better glide. now that all the small mammals living at the base of the tree have strong legs, the advantage goes to the small mammals whose legs are strongest. in nature, you don't have to be faster than the cheetah, just faster than at least one other gazelle every time the cheetah hunts.
so, as generations go on, the small mammals at the base of the tree get stronger and stronger legs, until they reach a balance point where the energy required to power stronger legs is just barely less than the amount of extra energy they enable a creature to increase its diet by, and the resulting creature is essentially a gerbil. the small mammals that had lived in the top of the tree develop larger and more articulated skin flaps and behavioural modalities which slowly progress from gliding to flying (unlike birds, the flight of bats is in fact glide-based), until the advantages of flight (increased food avaliability and predator avoindance) are only slightly higher than the disadvantages (increased heat loss, excess energy usage), and the resulting creature is essentially a bat. they have structural similarities.
change and evolution do not occur in a vacuum. while the skin flaps are becoming wings, better and better hearing, better balance, and higher metabolisms are being selected for. while legs are getting stronger, longer whiskers, larger eyes, and stronger front teeth are being selected for.
that's the layman's nutshell explanation of evolution. it is very very simplified, so ask a question instead of flaming me if you think there's something i missed. there was no point at which a mouse looked up and said, 'if only i could fly.' fewer than one in a million genetic mutations produce a phenotypic change, and fewer than one in a million of those are beneficial. it takes tens, hundreds, thousands of generations to alter the development of a species significantly enough that a change can be seen. like madcat, i do find the serendipity of evolution a very compelling argument for the divine.
the concept you were discussing, JR, is what's known in biological circles as Lamarckian evolution, in which traits that an animal develops during its life are passed along to its offspring. Lamarckian evolotion was disproved by scientific observation in the 19th century, replaced by a wider acception of natural selection and niche biology--both of which have withstood rigorous scientific investigation. for an excellent text on the evolution of behavioural and phenotypically expressed genotypic characteristics, i recommend Alcock's text on animal behaviour. it's well written and general enough for the layman.
i, you see, already am a biologist. i have been one for many many years. and i find that among biological circles, between educated induviduals of all faiths, evolution vs. creation is a non-issue. people who understand biology know that it's not at all incompatible with spirituality and faith. biology just gives you a greater understanding of the actions of the divine, and inspires me to a greater love of it through study of it.
geo
now, those offspring that express the mutations have more babies that get the holy grail of biology:offspring that reproduce. so there are more of them, and their kids are a little healthier. the small mammals with strong legs also have an advantage out of the trees, on the ground...so, they're able to forage farther from the tree. and again, that holy grail of fitter offspring. the small mammals with the extra flaps of skin? they are able to move higher into the trees, and leap from tree to tree without going to the ground. fitter offspring. the niche of a species is not just defined by the world around it, but also by the capabilities of the organism.
so, we fast forward a hundred generations or so. now you have a diminishing population of small mammals with normal legs and no flaps of skin being outcompeted (getting less food and more attention from the predators) by their cousins. now, the strong-legs are only occasionally able to successfully interbreed with the skin-flaps, and those offspring are more often than not sterile. now that all the mammals living in the tops of the trees have skin flaps, the advantage goes to the small mammals whose skin flaps are larger, better attached, or in some other way provide a better glide. now that all the small mammals living at the base of the tree have strong legs, the advantage goes to the small mammals whose legs are strongest. in nature, you don't have to be faster than the cheetah, just faster than at least one other gazelle every time the cheetah hunts.
so, as generations go on, the small mammals at the base of the tree get stronger and stronger legs, until they reach a balance point where the energy required to power stronger legs is just barely less than the amount of extra energy they enable a creature to increase its diet by, and the resulting creature is essentially a gerbil. the small mammals that had lived in the top of the tree develop larger and more articulated skin flaps and behavioural modalities which slowly progress from gliding to flying (unlike birds, the flight of bats is in fact glide-based), until the advantages of flight (increased food avaliability and predator avoindance) are only slightly higher than the disadvantages (increased heat loss, excess energy usage), and the resulting creature is essentially a bat. they have structural similarities.
change and evolution do not occur in a vacuum. while the skin flaps are becoming wings, better and better hearing, better balance, and higher metabolisms are being selected for. while legs are getting stronger, longer whiskers, larger eyes, and stronger front teeth are being selected for.
that's the layman's nutshell explanation of evolution. it is very very simplified, so ask a question instead of flaming me if you think there's something i missed. there was no point at which a mouse looked up and said, 'if only i could fly.' fewer than one in a million genetic mutations produce a phenotypic change, and fewer than one in a million of those are beneficial. it takes tens, hundreds, thousands of generations to alter the development of a species significantly enough that a change can be seen. like madcat, i do find the serendipity of evolution a very compelling argument for the divine.
the concept you were discussing, JR, is what's known in biological circles as Lamarckian evolution, in which traits that an animal develops during its life are passed along to its offspring. Lamarckian evolotion was disproved by scientific observation in the 19th century, replaced by a wider acception of natural selection and niche biology--both of which have withstood rigorous scientific investigation. for an excellent text on the evolution of behavioural and phenotypically expressed genotypic characteristics, i recommend Alcock's text on animal behaviour. it's well written and general enough for the layman.
i, you see, already am a biologist. i have been one for many many years. and i find that among biological circles, between educated induviduals of all faiths, evolution vs. creation is a non-issue. people who understand biology know that it's not at all incompatible with spirituality and faith. biology just gives you a greater understanding of the actions of the divine, and inspires me to a greater love of it through study of it.
geo
"Twelve highlanders and a bagpipe make a rebellion"
-Scottish proverb
-Scottish proverb
George, this still ignores one thing: the half-way point for wings would be *detrimental* to the survival of the animal. neither capable of running well, nor flying well, nor even gliding well, would make you prey for anything that could do any of the above. (One might say that if one is neither fish nor fowl, one's goose is surely cooked.)
It's a phenomenon called *irreducible complexity.* And wings-- flapping wings, not gliding membranes-- are the *simplest* example of this "evolutionary paradox."
The problem of irreducible complexity is multiplied a millionfold for the genesis of life. Remove part of the functions of a cell, you don't get a poorly working cell, you get a nonliving blot of chemicals.
Still, believing in evolution is much safer. It leaves yourself as the pinnacle of creation, and eliminates the possibility of an author to answer to.....
It's a phenomenon called *irreducible complexity.* And wings-- flapping wings, not gliding membranes-- are the *simplest* example of this "evolutionary paradox."
The problem of irreducible complexity is multiplied a millionfold for the genesis of life. Remove part of the functions of a cell, you don't get a poorly working cell, you get a nonliving blot of chemicals.
Still, believing in evolution is much safer. It leaves yourself as the pinnacle of creation, and eliminates the possibility of an author to answer to.....
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
I find this mindset endlessly fascinating as I strive to understand it.
On the one hand, we have the belief that an intermediate evolutionary trait is all but impossible to overcome, and so highly unlikely to occur...
... And on the other hand, there's the firm belief that a superpowerful being we can neither see nor hear nor detect, created all we are and all we can see, from nothing or less than nothing, in six days.
Fascinating.
Rennen
On the one hand, we have the belief that an intermediate evolutionary trait is all but impossible to overcome, and so highly unlikely to occur...
... And on the other hand, there's the firm belief that a superpowerful being we can neither see nor hear nor detect, created all we are and all we can see, from nothing or less than nothing, in six days.
Fascinating.
Rennen
Odd, that's not how I see it.Still, believing in evolution is much safer. It leaves yourself as the pinnacle of creation, and eliminates the possibility of an author to answer to.....
You imply an arrogance, 'I am the pinnacle of all creation', in the nonbeliever. Yet, as a believer, you have the arrogance to presume that some almighty being made this entire planet, all the creatures thereupon and the entire universe in which it spins, entirely and apparently only, for the benefit of Man.
In any case, evolution is not the only "answer". The Buddhists don't believe in an afterlife, the Jews don't believe in a Hell. Various denominations of Christians have about five or six interpretations of who's going to be "saved" and who's not, and who's "condemned to burn" and who's not. Muslims think all of the above are doomed, and better yet, actively seeking them out and killing them is a good way to ensure one's own afterlife.
The arrogance. The hypocrisy.
Rennen
-
Random George
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Lawrence, KS, USA
Actually, I see myself as a stop on the evolutionary path as opposed to a pinnacle of anything. rather than being safe, or arrogant, i find this idea is tremendously humbling and settles upon me a huge responsibility to do right by future generations. just because you consider that to whom i will provide my answers invalid doesn't make it so.
that 'halfway' point...you mean like the one halfway between tadpole and frog, when it's got legs and a tail, lungs and vestigial gills? man, how do any of them ever make it to frogs? your biology is flawed. the halfway point you're talking about doesn't happen, because evolution is a shift over thousands of generations. and an organism doesn't get there because once a trait starts consuming more energy or decreasing fitness more than the advantage it provides, it stops being selected for. that's the balance point of fitness i was talking about. it's a very tidy system, natural selection. if it wouldn't work, it doesn't last. that's why fewer than one in a million phenotypically expressed genetic mutations are beneficial. that's why evolution is slow, because an organism that is drastically different from all the other organisms dies more often than not. an organism that is slightly different either has a slight advantage or a slight disadvantage, and over generations that alters the gene pool. we can talk about ideas like genetic drift and island biogeography, the founders' effect and sterile hybrids, if you like.
you seem to distill 'evolution' down to a single concept and decide to refute that as 'mumbo jumbo', when the science of natural selection is a remarkably complex set of investigations that began long before Darwin boarded the Beagle. I'm actually not even a Darwinist. I trace my biological roots to Mendel, Pasteur, and Lavoisier, personally--the fathers of modern investigative biology.
i find it amusing that so many who claim the hand of the divine is everywhere and all powerful, cannot find it under a miscroscope...while so many who understand that the hand of the divine is in fact everywhere and all-powerful have no trouble seeing its hand in natural selection. interesting dichotomy, that.
peace out,
geo
that 'halfway' point...you mean like the one halfway between tadpole and frog, when it's got legs and a tail, lungs and vestigial gills? man, how do any of them ever make it to frogs? your biology is flawed. the halfway point you're talking about doesn't happen, because evolution is a shift over thousands of generations. and an organism doesn't get there because once a trait starts consuming more energy or decreasing fitness more than the advantage it provides, it stops being selected for. that's the balance point of fitness i was talking about. it's a very tidy system, natural selection. if it wouldn't work, it doesn't last. that's why fewer than one in a million phenotypically expressed genetic mutations are beneficial. that's why evolution is slow, because an organism that is drastically different from all the other organisms dies more often than not. an organism that is slightly different either has a slight advantage or a slight disadvantage, and over generations that alters the gene pool. we can talk about ideas like genetic drift and island biogeography, the founders' effect and sterile hybrids, if you like.
you seem to distill 'evolution' down to a single concept and decide to refute that as 'mumbo jumbo', when the science of natural selection is a remarkably complex set of investigations that began long before Darwin boarded the Beagle. I'm actually not even a Darwinist. I trace my biological roots to Mendel, Pasteur, and Lavoisier, personally--the fathers of modern investigative biology.
i find it amusing that so many who claim the hand of the divine is everywhere and all powerful, cannot find it under a miscroscope...while so many who understand that the hand of the divine is in fact everywhere and all-powerful have no trouble seeing its hand in natural selection. interesting dichotomy, that.
peace out,
geo
"Twelve highlanders and a bagpipe make a rebellion"
-Scottish proverb
-Scottish proverb
"Cannot find under a microscope..."
What is the definition of the word "Supernatural?"
*That which is outside the laws of nature.* An infinite being capable of creating a Universe of such demonstrated vastness and complexity as our own is going to be, by definition, outside of the physical laws of the Universe He created.... and definitely beyond the comprehension of a finite mind. Were a mortal, finite creature to witness such a being, how would that mortal comprehend or even recognize it? It would be like a goldfish trying to comprehend astrophysics.
Did you know a frog cannot see anything except movement? Anything more complex than light and dark, motion and stillness, is beyond its capability to comprehend *or even see.*
We probably look at God all day long and don't see Him.
The reason you can't find God through a microscope, darlin', is cause you're looking through the wrong end.
So how do we know God exists?
Two ways... the same way we know sapience exists within the skulls of other human beings around us:
1)Secondary evidence. If you see a footprint, you don't need to see the boot to know what made it. If you read a letter, you don't need to know an intelligent mind wrote or typed it. Witness a house, the architect and carpenters may be long dead, but you know that they existed, by the product of their work.
If the Universe, and all in it, life especially, demonstrates profound complexity and order, it isn't to profound a leap to conclude that this order just MIGHT be the product of an Intelligence... especially when we see that the only thing that randomness and chaos produces on its own is more randomness and chaos.
2)*If that Intelligence makes an effort to contact US.*
Which is the contention of all religion-- that a God, incomprehensible in full to us, nevertheless reaches down to our level-- and only asks that we make the effort to reach back. In a world of unending unexplainable phenomena, a world full of miracles, is that such an irrational assumption to make?
The evolutionary "scientist" would say so. And would insist, with a straight face, that all the life and structure around us are the product of billions of years of lucky mistakes.... that blind forces no rational person would expect to be capable of assembling a jigsaw puzzle, assembled life itself.
Someone's got something invested they're afraid to lose.....
What is the definition of the word "Supernatural?"
*That which is outside the laws of nature.* An infinite being capable of creating a Universe of such demonstrated vastness and complexity as our own is going to be, by definition, outside of the physical laws of the Universe He created.... and definitely beyond the comprehension of a finite mind. Were a mortal, finite creature to witness such a being, how would that mortal comprehend or even recognize it? It would be like a goldfish trying to comprehend astrophysics.
Did you know a frog cannot see anything except movement? Anything more complex than light and dark, motion and stillness, is beyond its capability to comprehend *or even see.*
We probably look at God all day long and don't see Him.
The reason you can't find God through a microscope, darlin', is cause you're looking through the wrong end.
So how do we know God exists?
Two ways... the same way we know sapience exists within the skulls of other human beings around us:
1)Secondary evidence. If you see a footprint, you don't need to see the boot to know what made it. If you read a letter, you don't need to know an intelligent mind wrote or typed it. Witness a house, the architect and carpenters may be long dead, but you know that they existed, by the product of their work.
If the Universe, and all in it, life especially, demonstrates profound complexity and order, it isn't to profound a leap to conclude that this order just MIGHT be the product of an Intelligence... especially when we see that the only thing that randomness and chaos produces on its own is more randomness and chaos.
2)*If that Intelligence makes an effort to contact US.*
Which is the contention of all religion-- that a God, incomprehensible in full to us, nevertheless reaches down to our level-- and only asks that we make the effort to reach back. In a world of unending unexplainable phenomena, a world full of miracles, is that such an irrational assumption to make?
The evolutionary "scientist" would say so. And would insist, with a straight face, that all the life and structure around us are the product of billions of years of lucky mistakes.... that blind forces no rational person would expect to be capable of assembling a jigsaw puzzle, assembled life itself.
Someone's got something invested they're afraid to lose.....
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
-
Random George
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Lawrence, KS, USA
actually...a point of clarification...i didn't say *i* couldn't find the divine under a microscope. i find divinity under a microscope, through a telescope, with my naked little eyes, and even when i'm not looking for it. there it is. everywhere. you can't walk around without stepping on the handiwork of the divine. every morning when i open my eyes, the beauty is all around me, surrounding me so that i cannot help but rejoice in that there is a greater being from whom it all came.
what i said was that i was frustrated with people who seem to consider science and faith as somehow incompatible. i'm frustrated with people who refuse to accept that coincidences happen...i.e. mutations, and that there might possibly be a larger scope that allows for a framework in which these coincidences can lead to an evolutionary progression of species, organisms, and individuals. that the world can be chaotic and quantifiable without being godless. that there must either be a supreme being and all science except that which proves the supremacy of the supreme being must be spurious, or that there can be no supreme being and all science which suggests it might be so must be discarded as well. i've never found any science that proves there's no god. i've just never found any that proves to me that there's only one. i've found a lot of scientific evidence in my life that there is more to this world than can be explained by molecular action and the laws of quantum mechanics. that doesn't prove the christians are right, any more than it proves the buddhists or the hindu are right. all we can really know for a fact is that there are unknowable things in this universe, things beyond our ability to comprehend.
i choose to define those things differently from some. so be it. you don't like it? i don't really care. it doesn't matter if others don't share my beliefs. just don't patronize and denigrate me as a person just because you disagree with me. i've treated the people in this forum with respect and courtesy. many of them have returned that respect and courtesy, but a notable few find it particularly effective to demean, patronize, and insult those who disagree with them. those who provide examples of their faith by attacking people for not being like them do a grave disservice to their beliefs. as i think through things, i realize that there are a lot more examples in mr. hayes' work of non-christians in a negative light than there are of christians in a positive light. apparently he is an adherent of the doctrine that negative stereotypes are more powerful imagery than positive examples. i continue to read this comic for the same reason i continue to read zippy the pinhead and the family circus. each of those was once (and by once i mean 'one time', not 'used to be') funny and insightful, and so much so that i've kept reading in hopes that it will happen again. but with one storyline falling into what seems to me to be a most unchristian tendency towards the ideas of vengeance, retribution, and hostility (nip an tuck is on its *second* storyline about getting particularly unpleasant revenge on those who have wronged you), and another that is consistently used as a vehicle not to positively portray one ideal but to caricature and vilify conflicting ones, i begin to lose what hope i had. this saddens me.
peace out,
geo
what i said was that i was frustrated with people who seem to consider science and faith as somehow incompatible. i'm frustrated with people who refuse to accept that coincidences happen...i.e. mutations, and that there might possibly be a larger scope that allows for a framework in which these coincidences can lead to an evolutionary progression of species, organisms, and individuals. that the world can be chaotic and quantifiable without being godless. that there must either be a supreme being and all science except that which proves the supremacy of the supreme being must be spurious, or that there can be no supreme being and all science which suggests it might be so must be discarded as well. i've never found any science that proves there's no god. i've just never found any that proves to me that there's only one. i've found a lot of scientific evidence in my life that there is more to this world than can be explained by molecular action and the laws of quantum mechanics. that doesn't prove the christians are right, any more than it proves the buddhists or the hindu are right. all we can really know for a fact is that there are unknowable things in this universe, things beyond our ability to comprehend.
i choose to define those things differently from some. so be it. you don't like it? i don't really care. it doesn't matter if others don't share my beliefs. just don't patronize and denigrate me as a person just because you disagree with me. i've treated the people in this forum with respect and courtesy. many of them have returned that respect and courtesy, but a notable few find it particularly effective to demean, patronize, and insult those who disagree with them. those who provide examples of their faith by attacking people for not being like them do a grave disservice to their beliefs. as i think through things, i realize that there are a lot more examples in mr. hayes' work of non-christians in a negative light than there are of christians in a positive light. apparently he is an adherent of the doctrine that negative stereotypes are more powerful imagery than positive examples. i continue to read this comic for the same reason i continue to read zippy the pinhead and the family circus. each of those was once (and by once i mean 'one time', not 'used to be') funny and insightful, and so much so that i've kept reading in hopes that it will happen again. but with one storyline falling into what seems to me to be a most unchristian tendency towards the ideas of vengeance, retribution, and hostility (nip an tuck is on its *second* storyline about getting particularly unpleasant revenge on those who have wronged you), and another that is consistently used as a vehicle not to positively portray one ideal but to caricature and vilify conflicting ones, i begin to lose what hope i had. this saddens me.
peace out,
geo
"Twelve highlanders and a bagpipe make a rebellion"
-Scottish proverb
-Scottish proverb
-Except that then, we are no longer "made in his image", are we? We cannot snap our fingers and cause entire universes to appear, we cannot transcend space and time. So that part of the Bible is wrong.What is the definition of the word "Supernatural?"
-Ah, like telekenesis, Astrology, dowsing, spoon-bending, mind-reading, healing crystals, perpetual motion, communicating with the dead and predicting the future?That which is outside the laws of nature.
-An excellent question. You yourself have declared that we may look all day and yet never see him.So how do we know God exists?
He cannot be seen, heard, felt or tasted. His existence cannot be inferred, detected or analyzed, we can't extrapolate him from secondary data or by otherwise-unexplained phenomena. He does not interact with us at any level, is not part of this space-time continuum, and produces no detectable signal or emission.
We can't see him in a microscope, or a telescope, or an artificial-aperature very-large radiotelescope array. We can't see him with orbiting gamma-ray spectroscopes or buried neutrino detectors. We can't infer his presence by secondary phenomena, such as the way a "black hole" draws matter off a nearby star, or how light is 'bent' slightly by gravitational fields.
Millions shout for his help every day and get no answer, or if they do get a sort of answer, it's in the form of natural phenomena no different from happenstance or chance. Millions more get the same answers and yet are shouting to an entirely different diety, or no deity at all.
So Junior, your question is entirely valid: Just how do we know God exists?
Without the Bible, there is no evidence. And we, Man, wrote the Bible, so even that evidence is self-referencing, a circular argument.
What we do have evidence of is our theory- most reputable scientists acknowledge most models are indeed theory, as opposed to the usual theist arrogance of Divine Truth- of how the Universe came into being. Yes, it's a Theory, a model that best explins readily observable phenomena, and changing, sometimes slightly, sometimes greatly, as new information is found, as the resolution of our instruments improves.
And, I'm sure you looked upon the word "changes" and thought "Ah-ha! He acknowledges the earlier theories were wrong and were later changed!" Go ahead, it's been used before, and that's still a mistaken assumption.
Most of the "changes" are merely improvements in resolution. Once we thought the World was Flat. Was this "wrong"? To a man standing atop a mountain, the world may not seem "flat", but it surely appears level. To the resolution of the instruments he has, the assertation of flatness is correct.
Later, when a Greek sits at the bottom of two wells on the same day, a year apart, he can logically infer the world is indeed round, and calculates it to within a few percent of modern measurment.
Did that invalidate the previous assertation? Not really. The man on the mountain could see thousands of square miles, but that's just an infinitesimal fraction of the whole. The Greek bypassed direct observation and moved to logical inference, and was then able to measure the entire world, instead of just what he could see.
Later still when we've orbited land-mapping satellites, we remeasured the Earth and came up with yet another number. Did this invalidate the previous number? Not necessarily, it improved it's resolution. The Greek did remarkably well with a crude yardstick measuring the shadow cast by the sun.
We may no longer use that number, as more accurate numbers now exist, but we have by no means wholly invaidated it.
The "changes" so often derided by theists are often merely improvements, refinements as we learn more.
And it's interesting to see how further improvements in science seem to be further invalidating Biblical dogma: At one time, it was assumed the Noaic story of the "Flood" was literally true- that it covered the entire planet with water.
We now know that cannot possibly be true- there's no geological evidence that water ever rose to such heights (and such evidence would be planetwide- in the ice caps, in Norway and Greenland, in Australia, ad nauseum) but there IS evidence that an ancient sea broke through a natural earthen dam and flooded a large area in the middle east thousands of years ago.
A cataclysm of large proportions indeed, and likely the origins of the story, but five or six orders of mangnitude less than that needed to encompass the entire earth.
Which further disproves the story of Noah himself- how could Noah have saved the African zebra? The North sea harp seal? The Australian dingo? So the Ark story also cannot be true.
Astronomical evidence points to theories other than Creation and the origin and age of the Earth. We're now told those Biblical stories are 'mere metaphor', they're simply setting the stage, illustrating the beginnings of the story for the reader. (Except that, at one time, these stories were assumed to be undeniable fact, and dissenters were killed or tortured into conversion.)
Gelologic evidence points to theories entirely different than Creation, and so we're told by the Theists that God made the world and all in it and above it, in situ, including fossils, decaying radioisotopes, and even light from the stars "already on it's way". But wait, then we're being tricked, misled. The evidence given points away from the supposed fact. That can't be, as I was told that trickery and deceit were the bastions of Satan...
Rennen
-
ZOMBIE USER 12293
- Newbie
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:26 am
Oh no... again?
First off, let me explain that I am an athiest. There, it's out in front with no qualifiers or apologies.
Now then, can we PLEASE not get into this battle between the theistic and the non-theistic? I've gone into these debates so many times in the past that I am convinced of only one thing: Religion is a topic that is never going to get resolved, confirmed or otherwise concluded when two or more disagreeing parties decide to start pointing out the "flaws" in the other's belief system. There is no acceptable way to start a civilized discourse when one side starts out with "I know this is what you think the truth is, but you're wrong," either through implication or direct means... So please, let's cease and desist from this already overburdened topic and move on.
Thanks,
Noa
First off, let me explain that I am an athiest. There, it's out in front with no qualifiers or apologies.
Now then, can we PLEASE not get into this battle between the theistic and the non-theistic? I've gone into these debates so many times in the past that I am convinced of only one thing: Religion is a topic that is never going to get resolved, confirmed or otherwise concluded when two or more disagreeing parties decide to start pointing out the "flaws" in the other's belief system. There is no acceptable way to start a civilized discourse when one side starts out with "I know this is what you think the truth is, but you're wrong," either through implication or direct means... So please, let's cease and desist from this already overburdened topic and move on.
Thanks,
Noa
-
ZOMBIE USER 12759
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:26 am
-
Marcus Talbain
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 6:18 pm
ahhhh, FAITH, I do my best to stay out of arguments about faith, those who have faith in something are very hard to convince otherwise.
some people look around and see the handiwork of a divine creator, be it God, or some other deity, despite the fact that they have no physical "Proof" they have Faith in the fact that there was a hand behind everything.
others look around and see the end product of millions upon millions of years of evolution, despite the truely unbelieveable odds against such a random occurance they have Faith that it must have happened, after all, it's here isn't it?
I have seen so many bitterly fought battles over faith I don't even want to think about it, I have my own beliefs and that's good enough for me.
some people look around and see the handiwork of a divine creator, be it God, or some other deity, despite the fact that they have no physical "Proof" they have Faith in the fact that there was a hand behind everything.
others look around and see the end product of millions upon millions of years of evolution, despite the truely unbelieveable odds against such a random occurance they have Faith that it must have happened, after all, it's here isn't it?
I have seen so many bitterly fought battles over faith I don't even want to think about it, I have my own beliefs and that's good enough for me.
Schlock Code v1.0:
a(a++) E h+ i+++ I--- k+++>+++++ KL--- p+ Rs--- S++ SF+++ T+ 4UM- v+++ w-(w+) CQC+ (CQC++++) C Ba--- MU+(Mu+++) Gh++++
a(a++) E h+ i+++ I--- k+++>+++++ KL--- p+ Rs--- S++ SF+++ T+ 4UM- v+++ w-(w+) CQC+ (CQC++++) C Ba--- MU+(Mu+++) Gh++++
Odds
One small comment about the odds Ben spoke of:
The odds are astronomical, yes.
However......
The odds that a person buying one ticket for a large lottery, winning that lottery, are even greater.
Yet over the years people have won HUGE lottery prizes, even though they only bought 1-3 tickets.
Not too many, but a couple have.
The odds are astronomical, yes.
However......
The odds that a person buying one ticket for a large lottery, winning that lottery, are even greater.
Yet over the years people have won HUGE lottery prizes, even though they only bought 1-3 tickets.
Not too many, but a couple have.
Odds are funny things.
Just today, I was cleaning the shop, I'd been in there for hours. Junk strewn from stem to stern. Radio blaring in the background to give me some company.
I was tossing some boxes into the trash, tearing them up first to make more room. I reached down and picked up an empty shoe box.
The brand name of the shoes was "Everlast". At the very moment I grabbed and lifted the box, the radio station started playing "What it's like" by the band... Everlast.
What are the odds of a coincidence like that?
I'd been in the shop at least four hours. The radio station presumably has a play list of two or three hundred songs. I'd been walking past this stack of boxes all day, doing other menial things. Why'd I choose that day to clean up? The place has been a dump for weeks.
The odds of that event happening were astronomical. The randomness of the radio play, the fact I'd recently bought shoes- and that particular brand- and hadn't yet thrown the box out... And yet it happened.
You might have a one-in-fifteen-hundred chance of being in a car wreck when you leave the house, but that doesn't mean you're "safe" for 1,499 trips. Your very next trip could be the one. You might win the lottery the very first time you buy a 1-in-850,000-chance ticket.
"High odds" does not necessarily mean "impossible".
Rennen
Just today, I was cleaning the shop, I'd been in there for hours. Junk strewn from stem to stern. Radio blaring in the background to give me some company.
I was tossing some boxes into the trash, tearing them up first to make more room. I reached down and picked up an empty shoe box.
The brand name of the shoes was "Everlast". At the very moment I grabbed and lifted the box, the radio station started playing "What it's like" by the band... Everlast.
What are the odds of a coincidence like that?
I'd been in the shop at least four hours. The radio station presumably has a play list of two or three hundred songs. I'd been walking past this stack of boxes all day, doing other menial things. Why'd I choose that day to clean up? The place has been a dump for weeks.
The odds of that event happening were astronomical. The randomness of the radio play, the fact I'd recently bought shoes- and that particular brand- and hadn't yet thrown the box out... And yet it happened.
You might have a one-in-fifteen-hundred chance of being in a car wreck when you leave the house, but that doesn't mean you're "safe" for 1,499 trips. Your very next trip could be the one. You might win the lottery the very first time you buy a 1-in-850,000-chance ticket.
"High odds" does not necessarily mean "impossible".
Rennen
One of the prime errors made by those who are arguing "astronomical odds" against evolution is that they assume the current configuration of Life, the Universe, and Everything (to borrow from Douglas Adams 
) is the only possible state.
If our current universe is indeed the only possible winning combination out of the quadrillion-possible-combinations cosmic lottery, then the odds do appear insurmountably high (although as Archae99 and Rennen point out, improbable <> impossible). If, on the other hand, there are millions, or even thousands, of other possible states the universe (and life) could exist in which are equally valid (i.e. stable, life-producing, etc.), then the odds become somewhat better.
Of course, one could always simply adopt the solipsistic viewpoint -- regardless of the odds, it must have happened, otherwise we wouldn't be here arguing about it.
) is the only possible state.If our current universe is indeed the only possible winning combination out of the quadrillion-possible-combinations cosmic lottery, then the odds do appear insurmountably high (although as Archae99 and Rennen point out, improbable <> impossible). If, on the other hand, there are millions, or even thousands, of other possible states the universe (and life) could exist in which are equally valid (i.e. stable, life-producing, etc.), then the odds become somewhat better.
Of course, one could always simply adopt the solipsistic viewpoint -- regardless of the odds, it must have happened, otherwise we wouldn't be here arguing about it.