Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fruitless Searches! responses to selected items

Expand Messages
  • stewart8724
    Kurt: I am not a creationist. Stewart: I didn t say you were, I just answered your statement. Stewart: Evolutionary science ignores such speculation because
    Message 1 of 59 , Oct 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Kurt: I am not a creationist.

      Stewart: I didn't say you were, I just answered your statement.

      Stewart: Evolutionary science ignores such speculation because one subject has nothing to do with the other.

      Kurt: All evidence to the contrary! Google evolution vs creation and you'll get about a billion options. Engage virtually anyone on the topic and you'll hear heartfelt and impassioned responses from both sides that show the two are clearly entangled. What is at issue here is not just what science is looking for but rather what we believe and why. Isn't that why we're posting here, to support/explore your beliefs?

      Stewart: Yes, Google 'Moon landings', '911', 'UFOs', JFK etc. and you'll also get a billion comments, all equally as impassioned. Would you ask scientists to waste time responding to the zany opinions you find on all these issues.
      If you want to explore why we believe, great. I agree that is the reason I am here. What we cant do is ask science to endorse our conclusions if those conclusions stray into the philosophical. That doesn't mean we can't cite scientific evidence as validation of our reasoning.


      Kurt: Youre saying we looked to a self-invented, non-existent deity to help us cope with and explain the natural environment? The same environment that hominids had already been interacting with for the previous two million years. Really? After 3 or 4 billion years of life on this planet, in one form or another, along comes a species that needs to self-invent a creator to interact with the environment? Unlikely.

      Stewart: That's what I'm saying however unlikely you might think it. I also said in the last post that this need is accentuated when human civilisations settled in one area. I don't doubt that they had the same propensity to personify nature (Mother Earth) before that, but staying in one place allows you to create permanent structures in honour of your Gods. This keeps the deities in the present as they evolve with the population.

      Stewart: Humans developed the intelligence to understand that there was a future… They were intelligent enough to know the questions to ask but not experienced enough to know the answers. So they did what humans do best, they look for patterns, they try to understand how the world works.

      Kurt: You don't know that. You are making extrapolations based on what?

      Stewart: Based on human behaviour as it is today. I'm assuming we haven't been able to change our instincts to any great extent.

      Kurt: A person with an opposite agenda could as accurately assume early humans made informed decision based on senses and intellect no less, likely more, attune to their environment than yours or mine, made the accurate assessment that a creator was at work and reasonably sought to engage in a relationship with that creator. Your assumptions reflect a bias equal to any religious belief.

      Stewart: Rubbish, how does it show bias? I'm certain that they were more in tune with nature than 'civilised' people today. But it is no slur to say that they were completely oblivious to certain discoveries made since. Even in the time of the Pharaohs they had not developed the wheel, So this has nothing to do with an agenda, I think you have leapt to another false conclusion.

      Stewart: These are questions that can't be answered quickly, or at least not quickly and accurately. A compromise which offered a reason would be welcome even if the reason wasn't entirely accurate. Humans resorted to superstition as a makeshift response, and they are not the only animals that do this.

      Kurt: I gather you're saying that creationists today are inflicted with the residual effect of these erroneous beliefs, that the superstitions of early humans were so potent that even today creationist cannot escape them? If so, how is it that evolution-believers gained immunity? Are you not equally the progeny of those same early humans? Did not the same progeny that invented prayer also invent the scientific method? This is connected to my original point: both creationism and evolutionary theory represent the same behavior.

      Stewart: Why do you immediately assume that every answer I give is an attack on religion? I am saying that people are superstitious. Some of those superstitious people are theists. If you doubt that these ancient superstitions lacked sufficient and enduring effect on society, explain why people still 'touch wood', won't walk under a ladder, 'don't open umbrellas in doors', cross their fingers, avoid black cats, throw salt over their shoulder and so on.

      Stewart: Tests were carried out on pigeons which showed similar behaviour... pigeons too are superstitious

      Kurt: I read this study from B F Skinner. Smart guy. I'm always impressed by the patients and dedication this kind of study takes. Is it really a satisfying answer to you? Does it really speak to humanities species-long passion and desire for a creator? Does it even speak to our desire to look at pigeons? Or write down what we see? No. I don't think it speaks to desire at all.

      Stewart: I have no idea what you're trying to say. I pointed out that you don't know if other creatures are devoid of compulsive and irrational self serving habits, as you had implied

      Stewart: Evolution doesn't satisfy the need for a creator it offers an explanation to a natural phenomenon, as with gravitational theory, electricity, relativity etc. We have an insatiable hunger for understanding, it's this need that is satisfied by scientific theory. Evolution is not seen as a creator, it is limited to explaining the variety of species, not the all encompassing creation ascribed to Gods.

      Kurt: I think that's what we want evolution to do, I'd agree that that's the ideal. But it's not playing out that way, is it? For many, too many, you included, I'd guess, it does function as a belief system, and does play a roll that satisfies the need for a creator.

      Stewart: You guess? So far that hasn't been a successful tactic for you has it?
      You assume that because there is a religiously motivated resistance to evolution, that evolution its self must be religiously defended? The problem with that argument is that most theists (by some considerable margin) believe in evolution. So defending evolution does not indicate a hatred for religion or a need to replace religions creators.

      Stewart: A faith is accepted without having to explain its self, it doesn't have to make sense and it isn't subject to any natural laws. Scientific knowledge is an entirely different thing

      Kurt: You don't think the average evolution-believer accepts it faith or by authority?

      Stewart: It makes no difference what "the average" person thinks. You are accusing people who know what evolution is, of adopting it on the same basis that those who know nothing about it do. That is fundamentally unfair and absolutely misleading. Notwithstanding that there are those who neither know nor care about how evolution works, those who do, make their conclusions based on evidence. If you did likewise instead of guessing, you might make better judgements.

      Kurt: I talked about that in a previous post. We can cover it more if you want. The evolution/creation debate seems substantial, the differences feel irreconcilable, but what I had said in my first post applies here, they are both means of answering the same desire, that commonality is a more compelling than the differences.

      Stewart: I'll discuss whatever you like, but I don't see the commonality between creationism and evolution, they seem to me to be diametrically opposed.


      Kurt: Wouldn't scientifically endorsed mean the same as human being endorsed? Does any human experience or perspective exist without bias? The scientific method is our best shot at objectivity, an important and valuable tool. Still, it is a means, not an end. It is a human invention, for, by and about no one but us. Nature does not care about the scientific method. Appling it toward our own beliefs and desires can reveal nothing but our own beliefs and desires. What else would you expect?

      Stewart: First - Scientifically endorsed means that it is something sanctioned by people who dedicate their lives and stake their reputations on their disciplined examination of nature.
      I don't know what "human being endorsed" means other than something somebody somewhere at sometime thinks. The difference between the two is that one of them inspires a greater degree of confidence in its validity.
      Science is a method it's not a tool, and who said it serves nature? It serves us , no one pretends otherwise. What else do YOU expect?

      Stewart: It would be just lovely if we could all get on together, but sometimes we don't. (except me) The price of individuality - Se la vie.

      Kurt: Yes, it would be nice. Perhaps that day will come, it could happen.

      Stewart: Are you rehearsing for a beauty contest?


      ..

      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "khunsinger33" <khunsinger33@...> wrote:
      >
      > Stewart: Creationism doesn't pose many questions at all...
      >
      > Kurt: I am not a creationist.
      >
      > Stewat: Evolutionary science ignores such speculation...
      >
      > Kurt: I know. That's why I brought the topic to this group. I'm not here to convince you of anything but rather to explore the point. Though I'm thinking hypothesis more than speculation.
      >
      > Stewart: ...because one subject has nothing to do with the other.
      >
      > Kurt: All evidence to the contrary! Google evolution vs creation and you'll get about a billion options. Engage virtually anyone on the topic and you'll hear heartfelt and impassioned responses from both sides that show the two are clearly entangled. What is at issue here is not just what science is looking for but rather what we believe and why. Isn't that why we're posting here, to support/explore your beliefs?
      >
      > Stewart: You're mistaken in thinking that humans don't display the same behaviour for exactly the same reason as other animals. You say animals respond to stimuli for real reasons, but humans believe in deities for real reasons. God is the answer to a number of questions which have real significance. What will make the rains come...
      >
      > Kurt: Youre saying we looked to a self-invented, non-existent deity to help us cope with and explain the natural environment? The same environment that hominids had already been interacting with for the previous two million years. Really? After 3 or 4 billion years of life on this planet, in one form or another, along comes a species that needs to self-invent a creator to interact with the environment? Unlikely.
      >
      > Stewart: Humans developed the intelligence to understand that there was a future… They were intelligent enough to know the questions to ask but not experienced enough to know the answers. So they did what humans do best, they look for patterns, they try to understand how the world works.
      >
      > Kurt: You don't know that. You are making extrapolations based on what? A person with an opposite agenda could as accurately assume early humans made informed decision based on senses and intellect no less, likely more, attune to their environment than yours or mine, made the accurate assessment that a creator was at work and reasonably sought to engage in a relationship with that creator. Your assumptions reflect a bias equal to any religious belief.
      >
      > Stewart: These are questions that can't be answered quickly, or at least not quickly and accurately. A compromise which offered a reason would be welcome even if the reason wasn't entirely accurate. Humans resorted to superstition as a makeshift response, and they are not the only animals that do this.
      >
      > Kurt: I gather you're saying that creationists today are inflicted with the residual effect of these erroneous beliefs, that the superstitions of early humans were so potent that even today creationist cannot escape them? If so, how is it that evolution-believers gained immunity? Are you not equally the progeny of those same early humans? Did not the same progeny that invented prayer also invent the scientific method? This is connected to my original point: both creationism and evolutionary theory represent the same behavior.
      >
      > Stewart: Tests were carried out on pigeons which showed similar behaviour... pigeons too are superstitious
      >
      > Kurt: I read this study from B F Skinner. Smart guy. I'm always impressed by the patients and dedication this kind of study takes. Is it really a satisfying answer to you? Does it really speak to humanities species-long passion and desire for a creator? Does it even speak to our desire to look at pigeons? Or write down what we see? No. I don't think it speaks to desire at all.
      >
      > Stewart: Evolution doesn't satisfy the need for a creator it offers an explanation to a natural phenomenon, as with gravitational theory, electricity, relativity etc. We have an insatiable hunger for understanding, it's this need that is satisfied by scientific theory. Evolution is not seen as a creator, it is limited to explaining the variety of species, not the all encompassing creation ascribed to Gods.
      >
      > Kurt: I think that's what we want evolution to do, I'd agree that that's the ideal. But it's not playing out that way, is it? For many, too many, you included, I'd guess, it does function as a belief system, and does play a roll that satisfies the need for a creator.
      >
      > Stewart: A faith is accepted without having to explain its self, it doesn't have to make sense and it isn't subject to any natural laws. Scientific knowledge is an entirely different thing
      >
      > Kurt: You don't think the average evolution-believer accepts it faith or by authority? I talked about that in a previous post. We can cover it more if you want. The evolution/creation debate seems substantial, the differences feel irreconcilable, but what I had said in my first post applies here, they are both means of answering the same desire, that commonality is a more compelling than the differences.
      >
      > Stewart: This is nonsense. A wish is wanting something that you don't have. How could anyone wish for evolution without being aware of it beforehand? People who believe the theory of evolution do so because they understand it and as a result, accept it as a reasonable and logical explanation. We have it already, it's a real scientifically endorsed explanation. There is no need for wishing.
      >
      > Kurt: Wouldn't scientifically endorsed mean the same as human being endorsed? Does any human experience or perspective exist without bias? The scientific method is our best shot at objectivity, an important and valuable tool. Still, it is a means, not an end. It is a human invention, for, by and about no one but us. Nature does not care about the scientific method. Appling it toward our own beliefs and desires can reveal nothing but our own beliefs and desires. What else would you expect?
      >
      > Stewart: It would be just lovely if we could all get on together, but sometimes we don't. (except me) The price of individuality - Se la vie.
      >
      > Kurt: Yes, it would be nice. Perhaps that day will come, it could happen.
      >
      >
      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "stewart8724" <art1st@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Kurt: No doubt some feel that humanities effort to understanding a creator was a waste of time until evolutionary theory came along,
      > > but none the less, that effort has been a hallmark of our species' behavior. Regardless of whether or not you buy into it, creationism at least addresses the question of why we possess this desire/behavior, evolution nearly ignores it.
      > >
      > > Stewart: Creationism doesn't pose many questions at all, and they certainly don't entertain them if they question how the world was formed.
      > > Evolutionary science ignores such speculation because one subject has nothing to do with the other.
      > >
      > > Kurt
      > > Mice exhibit a scurrying behavior for only one reason, predators are real. Whales travel 1/2 way around globe to birth their calves only because those warm, safe waters are real. Lions will protect a water source only because the shortage of water is real. My point is, animals exhibit only behaviors that reflect a genuine reality. Evolution just doesn't produce animals that go about wasting their time looking for stuff that doesn't exist, nor does evolution produce behaviors that don't relate to a genuine reality. We know this, we see it played out every day in the creatures all around us, and yet evolutionary theory would have us believe humans are the only species on the planet that can somehow invent useless, impotent behaviors for itself.
      > >
      > > Stewart: You're mistaken in thinking that humans don't display the same behaviour for exactly the same reason as other animals. You say animals respond to stimuli for real reasons, but humans believe in deities for real reasons. God is the answer to a number of questions which have real significance. What will make the rains come? What will guarantee that the Nile will flood this year? How can we ensure that the mountain will not spew fire? What must we do to ensure that the buffalo return this year? These are all real concerns for people who have committed to staying in one location.
      > > Humans developed the intelligence to understand that there was a future that had to be planned for. They were intelligent enough to know the questions to ask, but not experienced enough to know the answers. So they did what humans do best, they look for patterns, they try to understand how the world works. These are questions that can't be answered quickly, or at least not quickly and accurately. A compromise which offered a reason would be welcome even if the reason wasn't entirely accurate. Humans resorted to superstition as a makeshift response, and they are not the only animals that do this.
      > > Tests were carried out on pigeons which showed similar behaviour. Pigeons being fed remotely via a chute were fed when they made a turn to the left. The next time they turned to the left they were fed again. From then on the feeding would happen at random, so the pigeons would sometimes get food when they turned left but not always. Despite the fact that turning left had no effect on the food supply the pigeons would still turn repeatedly to the left when shown food. Their behaviour didn't guarantee food but neither did it diminish the supply, that they believed their actions were effecting reallity is all that matters to show that pigeons too are superstitious.
      > >
      > > Kurt
      > > We tend to think of creationism and evolution as choices of intellect but I have come to believe they are instead both expressions of the same desire/behavior and that that behavior could not exist if a creator were not a genuine reality. What other explanation does evolutionary theory offer?
      > >
      > > Stewart: Evolution doesn't satisfy the need for a creator it offers an explanation to a natural phenomenon, as with gravitational theory, electricity, relativity etc. We have an insatiable hunger for understanding, it's this need that is satisfied by scientific theory. Evolution is not seen as a creator, it is limited to explaining the variety of species, not the all encompassing creation ascribed to Gods.
      > >
      > >
      > > Kurt:
      > > Take the time to talk with some average evolution-believing folks and ask them to define evolution or even give an example of Natural Selection. I've asked people those questions for years, friends, acquaintances and students, and the answers you overwhelming get are about the varieties of dogs or improved crop production. Even the really silly answers like the evolution of the wheel to the airplane are more common than answers that show even the most basic understanding of Darwinian theory. After a 140 years of Darwinism permeating the culture, and two generations of teaching it in public schools, evolution, as it really plays out in the lives of average people, has become a wish-daddy, a faith, an accepted-by-authority, over-intellectualized religion.
      > >
      > > Stewart: A faith is accepted without having to explain its self, it doesn't have to make sense and it isn't subject to any natural laws. Scientific knowledge is an entirely different thing. If you don't see the distinction between the two, then you are an example of the same degree of understanding as those people you talked to about evolutionary theory. (P.S. 153 years of Darwinian theory)
      > >
      > > Kurt
      > > Arguments about the fossil record, vestigial organs and the like give only the appearance of objectivity. What they really express is a justification of a belief-system. Evolution-believers wish it to be true no more, no less than believers of any faith.
      > >
      > > Stewart: This is nonsense. A wish is wanting something that you don't have. How could anyone wish for evolution without being aware of it beforehand? People who believe the theory of evolution do so because they understand it and as a result, accept it as a reasonable and logical explanation. We have it already, it's a real scientifically endorsed explanation. There is no need for wishing.
      > >
      > > Kurt
      > > That is not to say that evolutionary science doesn't have a roll. It's defining that roll that is the important task, more important than quibbling about the usual minutia. Evolutionary science currently takes a lazy roll in education, in schools and culturally, passively allowing Natural Selection to be widely considered responsible for life, and in turn allowing it to function as religion. Evolutionary scientists need to step up and actively teach that evolution is the study of a process and nothing more, that evolution and Natural Selection are names we give to what life is capable of, not to be taken or taught as explanations.
      > >
      > > Stewart: It is taught as a process, part of that process includes natural selection. There are many other elements at work in the process of course, but I fail to see how this makes it a religion. I think there are too many people who have difficulty in distinguishing between a 'reasoned belief' and a 'religious belief'. Evolution is either valid as a theory or not, if not then why should it have a role? Most believe it is valid and we benefit from the role it plays as a result.
      > >
      > > Kurt
      > > I believe if science leaders could find the courage to do so we would see less pressure from IDers trying to get into public schools. Further, if creationists would just quit trying to be evolutionary scientists for God we'd be better equiped to distinguish the difference between science and religion. Having blurry lines between them is not good for either, or for the rest of us.
      > >
      > > Stewart: It would be just lovely if we could all get on together, but sometimes we don't. (except me) The price of individuality - Se la vie.
      > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "khunsinger33" <khunsinger33@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > "There's your mistake. People don't wish Darwinian theory to be true."
      > > >
      > > > Kurt: Take the time to talk with some average evolution-believing folks and ask them to define evolution or even give an example of Natural Selection. I've asked people those questions for years, friends, acquaintances and students, and the answers you overwhelming get are about the varieties of dogs or improved crop production. Even the really silly answers like the evolution of the wheel to the airplane are more common than answers that show even the most basic understanding of Darwinian theory. After a 140 years of Darwinism permeating the culture, and two generations of teaching it in public schools, evolution, as it really plays out in the lives of average people, has become a wish-daddy, a faith, an accepted-by-authority, over-intellectualized religion. Arguments about the fossil record, vestigial organs and the like give only the appearance of objectivity. What they really express is a justification of a belief-system. Evolution-believers wish it to be true no more, no less than believers of any faith.
      > > > That is not to say that evolutionary science doesn't have a roll. It's defining that roll that is the important task, more important than quibbling about the usual minutia. Evolutionary science currently takes a lazy roll in education, in schools and culturally, passively allowing Natural Selection to be widely considered responsible for life, and in turn allowing it to function as religion. Evolutionary scientists need to step up and actively teach that evolution is the study of a process and nothing more, that evolution and Natural Selection are names we give to what life is capable of, not to be taken or taught as explanations. I believe if science leaders could find the courage to do so we would see less pressure from IDers trying to get into public schools. Further, if creationists would just quit trying to be evolutionary scientists for God we'd be better equiped to distinguish the difference between science and religion. Having blurry lines between them is not good for either, or for the rest of us.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Me: "In discussing the story related by Geisler and Turek, I said nothing at all about Darwinian theory not being for 'good moral upright people.' What I said was that Geisler and Turek did not expect their readers to conclude that the story diminished or discredited the scientific case for Darwinian theory (that is to say, they did not ask or expect their readers to illogically conclude from the story that Darwinian theory must be false). Whether the theory is 'not for good moral upright people' (whatever you mean by that) is an entirely different matter. Don't you ever tire of creating straw men?"
      > > > > D R Lindberg: "Can this be the same person who is continually ranting on about 'moral, social, cultural, political, and theological implications of Darwinian theory,' and who is now denying that claims that it is accepted for illogical immoral motives could possibly have any negative implications?"
      > > > >
      > > > > That's not at all what I'm saying. What I have been repeatedly saying - without effecting any understanding on your part - is that Geisler and Turek related their story about the biology professor for the purpose of illustrating that some people are motivated to accept Darwinian theory for reasons unrelated to science. By saying that I'm not in the least going back on things I've written about the moral, social, cultural, political, and theological implications of Darwinian theory. If you want to discuss how the professor's motivations relate to those implications, we can do that. But that's not been the point of this thread, which began when I remarked that some people fervently wish Darwinian theory to be true and Stewart replied by writing:
      > > > >
      > > > > "There's your mistake. People don't wish Darwinian theory to be true."
      > > > >
      > > > > I replied by writing:
      > > > >
      > > > > "Lots of them (including, obviously, you) do. The following passage from 'I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist' (by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek) illustrates why some people wish Darwinian theory (or Darwinism) to be true for reasons unrelated to science."
      > > > >
      > > > > I then quoted the story. Since then, you've quite successfully made every effort not to understand why I quoted it or why Geisler and Turek related the story in the first place.
      > > > >
      > > > > D R Lindberg (quoting ID critic Stephen M. Barr):
      > > > >
      > > > > "It would be much, much easier to question aspects of Darwinian evolution were it not for the Young Earth Creationists. And I am convinced that it would also be easier were it not for the strategic mistakes of the ID movement. Had the ID movement simply called attention to the amazing complexity of life at the cellular level, as Mike Behe did in Darwin's Black Box, and argued that satisfactory and detailed explanations of such complex structures do not yet exist, and noted that until such explanations have been found scientists are not entitled to assume that Darwinism is the whole story, then they might really have made it easier to 'question'. But they went far beyond that, and in overreaching they achieved far less than they could have --- and on balance their achievement may be negative. Yes, they put certain questions on the table --- and that is wonderful, and they are to be praised for that. I have praised them for that. But they made serious mistakes that have largely vitiated that achievement."
      > > > >
      > > > > http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-de\sign
      > > > >
      > > > > A response to Barr's essay by Discovery Institute Fellow Jay W. Richards can be found at:
      > > > >
      > > > > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_completely_misunderstan031991.html
      > > > >
      > > > > Jim in Missouri
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • khunsinger33
      ... Kurt: actually, the whole question of god is pretty hazy to me. I hold no specific believe on that. You asked me about it and i answered best i could.
      Message 59 of 59 , Oct 24, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "stewart8724" <art1st@...> wrote:
        >
        > Al: Let me ask you: Do you believe in demons? Ghosts? Unicorns? Lucifer? Alien visitors? Spiritual habitation of inanimate things as with the animistic beliefs of primitives? Local gods? If you're consistent, you will believe in these things because, apparently, you think that if human minds have reliably believed in it over time, it must have a basis in reality. Human beings have been believing in many of these things for tens or hundreds of millenia; why should they be any less credible than a monotheistic god?
        >
        > Kurt: Good question. I don't know, maybe. But then I don't believe in a creator-god. Not literally.
        >
        > Stewart: You don't believe in God, not literally? Which implies that you believe in a God in some other way. A non literal God maybe? The opposite of literal is figurative, is this God of yours symbolic, if so what does it symbolise?

        Kurt: actually, the whole question of "god" is pretty hazy to me. I hold no specific believe on that. You asked me about it and i answered best i could.

        > Kurt: I do feel the belief in a creator, demons, spiritual habitation and evolutionary theory all represent something substantial. Exactly why humanity holds all these seemingly kooky beliefs is hard to say, but we've clearly been at it long enough to know that the facts of science don't displace them, or dispel them or lessen the impact for those who have experience such phenomena. And yes, evolutionary theory belongs on the same list.
        >
        > Stewart: They all have substance but they are all "kooky beliefs"? You really are confused aren't you?

        Kurt: I said seemingly kooky. But yes, I think both substantial and seemingly kooky can be applied to the same thing. this conversation for example.
        >
        > Kurt: My point was not so esoteric as all that though. I was simply saying that the old argument of early-man inventing a creator to explain his `unfathomable and mysterious' environment is lame. It's silly, bias guess work.
        >
        > Stewart: Is it really guess work? Is it guess work to say that the Vikings believed in a God of thunder (Thor)? Is it guess work to say that the Greeks believed in a Goddess of love (Aphrodite)? Is it guess work to say that the Romans believed in the God of war (Mars)? Is it guess work to say the Egyptians believed in Gods of night (Anubis) and day (Ra)? Many peoples and just a few of many Gods created to explain mysterious phenomena. All of them well documented removing the need for any guessing. Should we view the worship of these Gods as a worthy pursuit? All of these Gods are specific to the cultures they were created by. It is not uncommon for people to apply anthropomorphic characteristics to aspects of nature, it makes nature easier to deal with.

        Kurt: Viking god named thor, not guess work. Ambigously identified "early humans" making nature easier to understand by self-inventing a god, yes, thats guess work.
        >
        > Kurt: Really, no offense here, but its funny how evolution-believers so revere their belief-system that they think the whole of humanity was lost in an ignorant fog until it came along. Unless you can show that the creator belief early man or modern man or any man represents an insanity then it remains at least a reasonable pursuit.
        >
        > Stewart: Really, no offence taken, but evolution is not a belief system. It is a conclusion based on the fruit of cumulative scientific evidence.
        > Do you remember all those "average" people you referred to before, the ones that knew nothing of the theory of evolution? Well you're one of them. If you had the faintest idea of what evolutionary theory actually is, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by printing such nonsense.

        Kurt: if i lack in that regard then I thank you in advance for your gentle tutelage.

        >
        > Al: I suggest these things *are* self invented, that these are artifacts of human consiousness and thinking (such as it is) -- they are figments of human imagination. Just as are unicorns and demons.
        >
        > Kurt: I've said before that that is a strange argument. If creator-belief is an erroneous artifact that prompts modern man unwittingly to believe in falsities, how is it you that could possible consider yourself immune? As for Demons, unicorns and the like, I've found Carl Jung to be a pretty good source for helping sort that out. The experience of life is quite a potent exchange to be sure. We process this exchange by means of imagery, apparently we don't know why this is true but it is. We hear words but to understand them, for them to have meaning, we must exchange them for images. We dream in images, think, plan, remember, regret and rejoice in imagery. A demon is no more, no less as real an image of the substance and realities of life than the image you may have of irreducible complexity. Imagery encompasses and represents all of our outer and inner experience. Evolutionary theory supposes we can do away with the imagery that doesn't fit the theory. How short sighted! I've heard the story of Jonah and the Whale marginalized as fantasy so many times I'll puke if I hear it again. I myself have been swallowed by a whale! Haven't you? Carried to a destination I would have otherwise avoided and was called on to accomplish a task not of my choosing. Life will do that to ya.
        >
        > Stewart: Oh aye, that sorts the whole thing out right enough. Except if you're blind, where's the reality in imagery then? This guy Jung makes as much sense as you do.

        Kurt: Try The Undiscovered Self. short book but packed with insight on why images play such an important roll. He also suggests that examining the group often leads to misconceptions when trying to learn something of the individual. something we would do well to remember in this discussion.
        >
        > Kurt: Now I whole-heartedly agree that science should not use imagery or language like that! But the rest of us should, a description of experience without it is bland, inaccurate and impotent. But that's the difference between science and evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has no compunction about seeping its way into our images of what life is and how it works and what defines it, robbing us of the potency of the imagery we should otherwise enjoy and learn from. And as a side note, isn't it kind of silly to invoke consciousness as a tool to support evolution when evolution has not the foggiest idea what it is, where it comes from or the purpose it serves?
        >
        > Stewart: If evolutionary theory seeps uninvited into your images, I would suggest that might be a problem unique to yourself. There may be drugs that can help. (or is that the cause?)

        Kurt: it's true, i could be projecting my own concerns onto others. I'll try to measure my comments with that in mind.

        > Consciousness is not a tool to support evolution it is a fact of nature in the higher life forms. Evolution also applies to life that is unconscious, plant life for example.
        > What is it? - It's awareness, being awake.
        > Where does it come from? - The brain of living beings.
        > What purpose does it serve? - It allows us to move to find our food, it allows us to move to another, more favourable location. It allows us to be more selective in choosing a candidate for reproduction. There you go, just a few advantages it offers.

        Kurt: Wow, ok, thanks for clearing that up.

        > Apart from being upset about imagery seepage, what is it you have against science?

        Kurt: Science? nothing. Evolution theory? Kind of a lot.
        >
        > There's always a place for the angry young man
        > with his fist in the air and his head in the sand. (Billy Joel)

        Thanks for the input. sorry to hear I've made that kind of impression. I'll try to offer more even-handed responses in the future... and more billy joel quotes if that'll help.
        >
        >
        >
        > ..
        >
        > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "khunsinger33" <khunsinger33@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > Al: Let me ask you: Do you believe in demons? Ghosts? Unicorns? Lucifer? Alien visitors? Spiritual habitation of inanimate things as with the animistic beliefs of primitives? Local gods? If you're consistent, you will believe in these things because, apparently, you think that if human minds have reliably believed in it over time, it must have a basis in reality. Human beings have been believing in many of these things for tens or hundreds of millenia; why should they be any less credible than a monotheistic god?
        > >
        > > Kurt: Good question. I don't know, maybe. But then I don't believe in a creator-god. Not literally. I do feel the belief in a creator, demons, spiritual habitation and evolutionary theory all represent something substantial. Exactly why humanity holds all these seemingly kooky beliefs is hard to say, but we've clearly been at it long enough to know that the facts of science don't displace them, or dispel them or lessen the impact for those who have experience such phenomena. And yes, evolutionary theory belongs on the same list. My point was not so esoteric as all that though. I was simply saying that the old argument of early-man inventing a creator to explain his `unfathomable and mysterious' environment is lame. It's silly, bias guess work. Really, no offense here, but its funny how evolution-believers so revere their belief-system that they think the whole of humanity was lost in an ignorant fog until it came along. Unless you can show that the creator belief early man or modern man or any man represents an insanity then it remains at least a reasonable pursuit.
        > >
        > > Al: I suggest these things *are* self invented, that these are artifacts of human consiousness and thinking (such as it is) -- they are figments of human imagination. Just as are unicorns and demons.
        > >
        > > Kurt: I've said before that that is a strange argument. If creator-belief is an erroneous artifact that prompts modern man unwittingly to believe in falsities, how is it you that could possible consider yourself immune? As for Demons, unicorns and the like, I've found Carl Jung to be a pretty good source for helping sort that out. The experience of life is quite a potent exchange to be sure. We process this exchange by means of imagery, apparently we don't know why this is true but it is. We hear words but to understand them, for them to have meaning, we must exchange them for images. We dream in images, think, plan, remember, regret and rejoice in imagery. A demon is no more, no less as real an image of the substance and realities of life than the image you may have of irreducible complexity. Imagery encompasses and represents all of our outer and inner experience. Evolutionary theory supposes we can do away with the imagery that doesn't fit the theory. How short sighted! I've heard the story of Jonah and the Whale marginalized as fantasy so many times I'll puke if I hear it again. I myself have been swallowed by a whale! Haven't you? Carried to a destination I would have otherwise avoided and was called on to accomplish a task not of my choosing. Life will do that to ya. Now I whole-heartedly agree that science should not use imagery or language like that! But the rest of us should, a description of experience without it is bland, inaccurate and impotent. But that's the difference between science and evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has no compunction about seeping its way into our images of what life is and how it works and what defines it, robbing us of the potency of the imagery we should otherwise enjoy and learn from. And as a side note, isn't it kind of silly to invoke consciousness as a tool to support evolution when evolution has not the foggiest idea what it is, where it comes from or the purpose it serves?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Al Young" <acyoung@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Kurt: Youre saying we looked to a self-invented, non-existent deity to help
        > > > us cope with and explain the natural environment? The same environment that
        > > > hominids had already been interacting with for the previous two million
        > > > years. Really? After 3 or 4 billion years of life on this planet, in one
        > > > form or another, along comes a species that needs to self-invent a creator
        > > > to interact with the environment? Unlikely.
        > > >
        > > > Let me ask you: Do you believe in demons? Ghosts? Unicorns? Lucifer? Alien
        > > > visitors? Spiritual habitation of inanimate things as with the animistic
        > > > beliefs of primitives? Local gods? If you're consistent, you will believe in
        > > > these things because, apparently, you think that if human minds have
        > > > reliably believed in it over time, it must have a basis in reality. Human
        > > > beings have been believing in many of these things for tens or hundreds of
        > > > millenia; why should they be any less credible than a monotheistic god?
        > > >
        > > > I suggest these things *are* self invented, that these are artifacts of
        > > > human consiousness and thinking (such as it is) -- they are figments of
        > > > human imagination.
        > > > Just as are unicorns and demons.
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.