Noah's Ark

[luke warm]

Lukewarm said:

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

 

 

Passed out said:

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence. 

 

And I ask: Jimmy, could you refresh our memories about your positions on evolution and Intelligent Design?

what evidence?

[PassedOut]

Lukewarm said:

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

Passed out said:

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence. 

And I ask: Jimmy, could you refresh our memories about your positions on evolution and Intelligent Design?

what evidence?

It's pointless to review the evidence on these matters because you've already made it clear that you reject any evidence, no matter how persuasive, that contradicts your strongly held (and vitally important to you) worldview. Given your worldview, those constraints that you've imposed on yourself make perfect sense even though many of us could not bear to live that way.

 

Surely, too, you can understand that those of us who adopt an evidence-based worldview cannot reject evidence on the grounds that it contradicts a worldview we do not share. Nor can we accept the conclusions that follow from a worldview not based on evidence.

[hrothgar]

Lukewarm said:

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

 

 

Passed out said:

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence. 

 

And I ask: Jimmy, could you refresh our memories about your positions on evolution and Intelligent Design?

what evidence?

Are we talking about evidence in favor of evolution or evidence that suggests that Noah's ark is a fable.

 

If we are talking about the former, I'd point to the following article studying E coli and citrate absorbtion.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1409...in-the-lab.html

 

If we are discussing the latter, the easiest place to start is discussions about evolutionary bottlenecks. We can point to evolutionary bottlenecks in a small number of species. (Cheetahs are the classic example) There is no evidence of an evolutionary bottleneck in the vast majority of specifies that are in existence today.

[helene_t]

Did Noah take one pair or two pairs from a ring species? I think if I were Noah I would take one female from either end of the chain, and one male from the middle ;)

[luke warm]

Lukewarm said:

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

Passed out said:

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence. 

And I ask: Jimmy, could you refresh our memories about your positions on evolution and Intelligent Design?

what evidence?

Are we talking about evidence in favor of evolution or evidence that suggests that Noah's ark is a fable.

i was talking about evidence of intelligent design... many scientists over the years have come to believe that the universe, and life on earth, are products of ID and not random events... some of these even rival the combined intellect of those on this forum... i can easily post their words, but it wouldn't matter much... as i said, people who have devoted there lives to certain intellectual disciplines are easily refuted by almot any poster on bbf

[PassedOut]

as i said, people who have devoted there lives to certain intellectual disciplines are easily refuted by almot any poster on bbf

Yes, and we know Al Roth spent a lifetime studying bidding theory. Just imagine how much more effective Meckwell would be if their opening bids were sound! Scary even to think about...

[mikeh]

I belatedly realized, a few months ago, that Lukewarm is impervious to argument based on logic or evidence, and that view of him appears to be shared by almost all who post in response to his posts. I understand the impulse to respond, having fallen victim to it many times, to the point that I can see how some, perhaps most, would categorize me as a 'hedgehog', in the sense alluded to in an earlier post in this thread.

 

I am going to float an idea.

 

That idea is that no-one post in response to any of Jimmy's posts that touch upon ID, evolution, the bible, morality, creationism or any other issue in which his point of view is apparently based on his belief system.

 

I am increasingly of the view that the main reason he posts (he posts more in the WC than in any other part of the forum) is the perverse pleasure he gets in engendering responses... I suspect that the rude ones posted by, for example, Richard and me, are the ones from which he derives the greatest pleasure, but I suspect that even the more dispassionate ones serve the same purpose.

 

If we starve him of the pleasure he derives from his illogical and belief-driven 'arguments', then perhaps he will stop. Worth a try?

[Al_U_Card]

Mike! You are messing with divine retribution if you keep it up!

 

All these things are necessary if we are to not forget why the world is in such a mess...somethng about learning from history and the errors we made therein? :lol:

[jdonn]

i was talking about evidence of intelligent design... many scientists over the years have come to believe that the universe, and life on earth, are products of ID and not random events... some of these even rival the combined intellect of those on this forum... i can easily post their words, but it wouldn't matter much... as i said, people who have devoted there lives to certain intellectual disciplines are easily refuted by almot any poster on bbf

So your claim is as follows: There are many scientists who agree with you (although I bet you and I have a different definition of "many") but you won't bother sharing with us since, as I think you are saying sarcastically, we would all just not believe anything that contradicts us because we think we are so smart.

 

And you wonder why you are spoken about on here in the way you are, regarding not caring about evidence when forming your beliefs?

 

It's not a falacy to say if you believe one thing for which there is insufficient evidence then your other beliefs hold less weight. It's a fact.

[luke warm]

I belatedly realized, a few months ago, that Lukewarm is impervious to argument based on logic or evidence, and that view of him appears to be shared by almost all who post in response to his posts. I understand the impulse to respond, having fallen victim to it many times, to the point that I can see how some, perhaps most, would categorize me as a 'hedgehog', in the sense alluded to in an earlier post in this thread.

 

I am going to float an idea.

 

That idea is that no-one post in response to any of Jimmy's posts that touch upon ID, evolution, the bible, morality, creationism or any other issue in which his point of view is apparently based on his belief system.

 

I am increasingly of the view that the main reason he posts (he posts more in the WC than in any other part of the forum) is the perverse pleasure he gets in engendering responses... I suspect that the rude ones posted by, for example, Richard and me, are the ones from which he derives the greatest pleasure, but I suspect that even the more dispassionate ones serve the same purpose.

 

If we starve him of the pleasure he derives from his illogical and belief-driven 'arguments', then perhaps he will stop. Worth a try?

i derive great pleasure from this inane post

[bid_em_up]

Mikeh, jdonn, hrothgar, et. al.:

 

I'm curious if any of you would be willing to change (or at least reconsider) your position if, by some chance, the remains of a big boat that is full of animal droppings was discovered tomorrow?

 

Or when faced with the "facts", if you would continue to maintain your version of it, simply because it is what "you believe to be true".

 

Just something to think about.

[jdonn]

Mikeh, jdonn, hrothgar, et. al.:

 

I'm curious if any of you would be willing to change (or at least reconsider) your position if, by some chance, the remains of a big boat that is full of animal droppings was discovered tomorrow?

I'm actually quite certain we all would change or reconsider our positions if such a thing were found (although more precisely, if something were discovered that somehow showed much/most/all of the evidence pointing toward evolution is false or being misinterpreted.) And that is what differs us from, let me just say, certain others.

 

Your post just shows you don't understand. I don't have a version of it. My version of it is whatever the evidence tells me. If I'm too lazy or unable to examine all the evidence, then my version of it is whatever the experts in studying the evidence tell me. In this case, there is a word for those experts. They are called scientists.

[helene_t]

I'm curious if any of you would be willing to change (or at least reconsider) your position if, by some chance, the remains of a big boat that is full of animal droppings was discovered tomorrow?

I change my mind about scientific issues all the time. I rarely dismiss discoveries reported in the scientific literature even if it concerns discoveries that I would have considered implausible if they hadn't been reported in scientific journals. Case in point: the idea that condom campaigns make the African AIDS epidemic worse. I am not dismissing it.

 

W.r.t. this particular myth I have no opinion, though, so there is not much to change. I have no idea what, if any, real event this particular myth is based on. Richard's Black Sea hypothesis might be a candidate. Maybe a flooding of the Nile or Euphrates is more likely. I dunno. I don't really care either.

[mikeh]

Mikeh, jdonn, hrothgar, et. al.:

 

I'm curious if any of you would be willing to change (or at least reconsider) your position if, by some chance, the remains of a big boat that is full of animal droppings was discovered tomorrow?

 

Or when faced with the "facts", if you would continue to maintain your version of it, simply because it is what "you believe to be true".

 

Just something to think about.

Maybe you should reread some of our posts :lol: I have stated, as have almost all of those espousing a pro-evolutionary stance, that the entire point is that we DO pay attention to the evidence! The evidence in favour of evolution by random (not purely random.... some mutations are more probable than others due to the nature of the chemistry and physics involved) mutation mediated by natural selection is overwhelming.

 

If we found incontrovertible evidence that man co-existed with dinosaurs (and, please don't bring up that bogus and thoroughly discredited creationist fabrication about 'finding' evidence of human footprints contemporaneous with dinsosaurs.. the evidence has to actually withstand scrutiny) then I would sincerely hope that all evolutionists would want to understand how that happened.

 

But, on the evidence so far assembled, the odds of this happening seem vanishingly small.

 

The scientific approach seems to me, as a non-scientist who has an undergraduate degree in applied science before moving to law, to require that we adopt theories, when they appear to survive analysis and testing, only for so long as they remain unrefuted, and supported by evidence. Of course, we have to also require, as part of the definition of theory, that it be susceptible to such analysis and testing, which is why ID and creationism are not theories... they are beliefs or ideas, but are not theories, no matter how fervently their adherents may claim to the contrary.

 

In reality, experience suggests that even the most scientifically minded of us can fall into the trap of refusing to accept evidence that contradicts our world-view and I am not so arrogant as to imagine that I am exempt from that truth. But I am confident enough to say that at least in principle I would be delighted by any firm evidence that causes a shakeup in our understanding of the universe.

 

Speaking for myself, but expecting that most of the pro-evolutionists posting here have similar views, the reason I read so many books on topics such as string theory, human psychology, anthropology, the history of science, and so on is precisely because of my curiosity. I am never going to be a professor, I am never going to understand the mathematics that underlie virtually all areas of scientific enquiry, but I am in awe of the vision that unfolds from reading the popularized descriptions of the current state of scientific enquiry.

 

In school, I learned about relativity and a little about particle physics as it was understood in the early 1970s. I recently read The Elegant Universe, as a result of which I think I now have a layperson's understanding of particle physics in the late 1990's.. and that view is far, far different from the view I was given 35+ years ago... and I love the fact that we have moved on... based on new ideas supported by new evidence.

 

That is, I think, the main difference between those who accept evolution, as one example, and those who don't. If you don't understand that, then I feel sorry for you, because you are missing out on some of the most wondrous insights into this incredible universe in which we live... substituting for it a pathetic, limited, mind-numbing myth.

[luke warm]

It's not a falacy to say if you believe one thing for which there is insufficient evidence then your other beliefs hold less weight. It's a fact.

a fact, eh? how would you frame such an argument? if this effort is incorrect, feel free to show yours (whether the below is true isn't important, it's the form i'm interested in)

 

a. josh believes the universe wasn't designed for a purpose

b. there is insufficient evidence for josh to hold this belief

therefore all josh's beliefs are suspect

 

is that pretty much what you're saying?

[TimG]

That idea is that no-one post in response to any of Jimmy's posts that touch upon ID, evolution, the bible, morality, creationism or any other issue in which his point of view is apparently based on his belief system.

But, Richard seems to have started this thread with the primary purpose of engaging luke_warm.

[mikeh]

That idea is that no-one post in response to any of Jimmy's posts that touch upon ID, evolution, the bible, morality, creationism or any other issue in which his point of view is apparently based on his belief system.

But, Richard seems to have started this thread with the primary purpose of engaging luke_warm.

Agreed... with the difference that I would use 'provoking' rather than 'engaging'... and I am suggesting that we stop both that practice and the practice of responding to Lukewarm's anti-science, pro-unthinking belief, now.... since we (and I am amongst the chief culprits) have simply been encouraging him to restate and restate the same nonsense, to no useful purpose that I have been able to discern.

[PassedOut]

I am going to float an idea.

 

That idea is that no-one post in response to any of Jimmy's posts that touch upon ID, evolution, the bible, morality, creationism or any other issue in which his point of view is apparently based on his belief system.

Once upon a time I ignored stuff that fell from attics not quite up to code. But over the years I've seen preposterous notions gain currency because no one respectable saw fit to "dignify them with a response."

 

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias." Kerry thought everyone would dismiss the swift-boat lies out of hand. Enough nut jobs have wormed into positions so that Texas, Kansas, and other states try to intimidate educators who want to teach our kids scientific facts.

 

It's too bad that unchallenged foolishness gains acceptance so easily, but I'm done with ignoring it.

[helene_t]

Dawkin's essay "why I won't debate creationists" comes to mind.

 

http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-...Richard-Dawkins

[mikeh]

I understand the reaction. However, my proposal was aimed at one particular zealot who preaches (and I use the word advisedly) on an obscure forum read by an infinitesimal fraction of the population, and where it appears that the large majority of those of us motivated to post in response have the same reaction to his drivel.

 

It seems to me that the illogic in his posts is already well-demonstrated to any inclined to any semblance of an open mind, and that by continuing to 'engage' him, we are simply encouraging him to spout more of the same.

 

Now, if this was a wider-read forum to which people turned to learn about matters in dispute, we should continue to speak out against those who believe that their readings of old books embues them with wisdom as opposed to dogma. But this is BBF! We ain't gonna change his mind, or that of Dr. Todd. Maybe someone like bid-em-up might be persuaded by our postings, and I would be happy to continue to try to explain to him the fundamental difference between evidence-based understandings and dogma-based beliefs, until and unless it becomes apparent that he has a firmly closed mind on the subject.

 

But this forum is a non-factor in the lives of 99.9999% of the western world population, giving us an optimistic level of value. So the thin end of the wedge factor, legitimate tho it undoubtedly is in the real world, is a non-starter here, as far as I can see.

[luke warm]

Dawkin's essay "why I won't debate creationists" comes to mind.

 

http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-...Richard-Dawkins

hasn't dawkins debated several creationists? maybe not, but i seem to remember a few... i might be thinking of others, gordon stein etc

[hrothgar]

Mikeh, jdonn, hrothgar, et. al.:

 

I'm curious if any of you would be willing to change (or at least reconsider) your position if, by some chance, the remains of a big boat that is full of animal droppings was discovered tomorrow?

 

Or when faced with the "facts", if you would continue to maintain your version of it, simply because it is what "you believe to be true".

 

Just something to think about.

I, for one, would be thrilled if a big boat full of animal dropping were discovered...

 

Eternal paradise? All the white raisins I can eat?

Sign me up! Please!

 

In all seriousness, the salvation myths preached by Islam and Christianity are really attractive. I don't think that any rational person wouldn't wanted to be "saved".

 

The question isn't whether one desires the big boat full of animal dropping to be true. Rather, the question is whether or not one finds the evidence compelling.

 

I, for one, don't...

 

For what it's worth, I suspect that most of the agnostics on these forums have changed our opinions at least once. I was raised in a religious household. (My mother still attends church semi-regularly).

 

I participated in Sunday School

I served as an acolyte

I went through confirmation classes

I was chosen to deliver a couple sermons to the congregation a St John's Evangelican Lutheran Church in Poughkeepsie New York

I even went through with the confirmation ceremony (admittedly, this was largely to make my mom and grandmother happy)...

 

Despite all this early teaching, I ended up drifting away from the Church.

 

This had nothing to do with the members of the congregation - nice folks one and all. This had nothing to do with politics, desire for a community of beleivers, or anything like that.

 

At the end of the day, I just couldn't swallow it all...

[Lobowolf]

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias."

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

[helene_t]

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias."

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

I believe the position is correct. The latest evidence of a conservative journalist was carbon-dated to just before the renaisance, and his DNA signature links him to modern TV priests rather than journalists.

[Lobowolf]

I, for one, would be thrilled if a big boat full of animal dropping were discovered...

 

Eternal paradise? All the white raisins I can eat?

Sign me up! Please!

 

In all seriousness, the salvation myths preached by Islam and Christianity are really attractive. I don't think that any rational person wouldn't wanted to be "saved".

 

The question isn't whether one desires the big boat full of animal dropping to be true. Rather, the question is whether or not one finds the evidence compelling.

 

I, for one, don't...

 

For what it's worth, I suspect that most of the agnostics on these forums have changed our opinions at least once. I was raised in a religious household. (My mother still attends church semi-regularly).

 

I participated in Sunday School

I served as an acolyte

I went through confirmation classes

I was chosen to deliver a couple sermons to the congregation a St John's Evangelican Lutheran Church in Poughkeepsie New York

I even went through with the confirmation ceremony (admittedly, this was largely to make my mom and grandmother happy)...

 

Despite all this early teaching, I ended up drifting away from the Church.

 

This had nothing to do with the members of the congregation - nice folks one and all. This had nothing to do with politics, desire for a community of beleivers, or anything like that.

 

At the end of the day, I just couldn't swallow it all...

I think there's a lot of truth in this post. I have a couple of close friends on the flip side, btw (Christians (intelligent, educated ones, even) who were not "brainwashed" since birth, but rather embraced Christianity from agnoticism, in one case, and from a sort of go-through-the-motions Judaism, in the other). I think to a large extent, it's a question not simply of "unwillingness to accept compelling evidence," but rather of what evidence one is predisposed to find "compelling." On both sides. I think human nature is such that (almost?) all of us lean toward accepting/embracing that evidence that reinforces our positions. Are there really unbiased people among us?

 

Yes, we do (most of us, anyway) change our positions from time to time. But when an article like the one on the Pope and condoms comes out, I do think there's a natural reaction among people who oppose condom programs to say, "See!" and among people who don't to immediately point out the distinction because correlation and causation, and whatever flaws are inherent in the study. If the conclusion is the opposite, so are the people willing to accept the study at face value, for the most part. Not because they comprise a group that is more objective, but because of the ultimate conclusion. Those conclusions that go against are beliefs are scrutinized far more closely. I've seen it repeatedly, in many venues on many topics, throughout the entire spectrum from casual debate to higher education.