Posted on 10/18/2002 11:16:06 AM PDT by xsysmgr
So? You see any biologists disagreeing? Abiogenesis is an interesing theory about the origins of life but it's not evolution. Why is that so difficult for you to figure out when you see it posted in every crevo thread (assuming you actually read any of them, of course)?
So why, balrog, was the premier pro-evolution web site named "TalkOrigins"?
Ask them if you want to know. I am sure that, if you ask politely, they will answer you. However, if you call them Atheist Anti-Christian Darwinists first, I suspect they might treat you accordingly.
I will quietly await your answer and if you throw more childish insults, I will call them out. Waiting patiently, balrog, for your answer . . .
Insults, me? Nah, couldn't be.
Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
I read that as supporting what has been said from the start: Abiogenisis, while related to the theory of evolution, is an independent area of inquiry. Unless you are in a position to summarize a theory of evolution that also addresses the origin of life, I don't think you can substantiate your claim.
Aw, poop, I should have just read a few posts ahead. Oh, well, nice post anyway.
Er, beg to differ. Here's a quote from Darwin's letter to Joseph Hooker in 1871. It is used in numerous lecture notes on the internet:
Yes. (ARRRGH, ya got me!) He speculated in private. Don't we all? But his formal works don't deal with the issue. And "classical" evolution (if I may use that expression) studies the development of life -- however that life first came into existence. [I'll give you a hug anyway.]
Strange...
you can believe in computers/windows but deny design---microsoft---Bill Gates...
"doesn't do your laundry"!
Ignorance is bliss!
The line between "classical" evolution and exobiology has pretty much blurred IMHO. This may be partly due to the handling of the subject in movies, TV, etc. The scripts for such TV favorites as "Startrek - the Next Generation" presume abiogenesis. One of them included a Picard visit back in time to the original "pond" courtesy of "Q."
I'll see your hug and raise you one!
I think that even most hard-core Trekies are embarrassed by that regretable phase of the Star Trek phenomenon -- The Next Generation. "Q" is the biggest flamer in the galaxy (except perhaps for the "Traveler").
I'll accept your hug but I won't raise you right now. (Things could get out of hand.)
No, you read my posts again and YOU think about it. And you folks are the ones playing the games. You've just run into someone who can handle it.
And a fine rebuttal it is, too. I answered your questions, I asked you to explain your sloppy thinking, and I'm "wasting your time"? [snif] You keep saying all those mean things and you're going to hurt my feelings.
From Post 100 by Phadrus:
In order to make this statement, you must be familiar with a theory of evolution with which I am not. Or may have failed to proofread your post. Or you are engaging in deliberate deception and dishonesty. You choose.
Now, who is wasting whose time, here?
No, he hid his true intentions from the public. In the Origins he never mentioned man descending from monkeys, but 10 years later in the Descent he made that claim full force. He was dishonestly trying to avoid the controversy of what his theory really meant by covering it up. He also dishonestly hid his atheism from the public for the same reason. Darwin was a very dishonest man.
That's good! Okay, I read your posts again and I want to know about this:
I tire of the obfuscations and misrepresentations from your side of the gorge, Patrick. "Atheist Anti-Christian Darwinism" tells it like it is.
It seems to me that most people reading this would have to wonder at your intent in posting such a statement to indiscriminately equate the concepts of atheist to Anti-Christian to Darwinist.
So...
1. Have you never read any previous crevo threads where various evos claimed to believe in God or be members of various religions?
2. Do you not believe evos when they make those claims?
3. Or do you think that you are on God's side and that relieves you of any obligation to be honest when you post?
4. Or is there another reason?
Now in case 1, you would simply be ignorant. Since you have been around a long time, that seems unlikely, at least on this specific point.
In case 2, you would be a hypocrite to debate dishonest people honestly. And given the efforts most of the evos go through to be painfully honest, even at the expense of their arguments, I would discount this possibility.
In case 3, you would be a Stone-Deaf-Holy-Warrior-on-a-Mission-from-God and feel free to lie (and post in blue) on God's behalf and call any evos who disagreed with you or contradicted you a "lying, sliming, Hitlerite, Stalinist, racist, baby-killing, responsible-for-all-the-ills-in-the-world, atheist, Anti-Christian Darwinist!" Humm, that doesn't strike me as your style either.
Let me be the first to admit that my analysis is not exhaustive and my conclusions may even be subject to error. In fact, I can think of a couple of other possibilities, but they are less pleasant to consider and might involve some potential vindictiveness or, possibly, madness on your part. I think such possibilities are better left unexplored.
So, I will leave it to you to explain to us all the reasons for your post a little better.
balrog
To: Condorman
You're wasting my time, Condorman. Post to someone else.
149 posted on 10/22/02 6:42 PM Central by Phaedrus
Maybe it's not the content of the thread she's interested in?
I agree. Lately however, I’ve been reassessing the importance of the play.
But merely to describe the two contending worldviews would be so provocative that I'll restrain myself.
I think you could be safe saying this conflict centers around man’s place in the cosmos as suggested by the theists and the humanists. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, but it’s a far more useful place to start than the painfully uninformed debate centering around evolution.
It's certainly not -- as the creationists allege -- about atheism, communism, or any of the other evils they love to blame on evolution. Those are unassociated with evolution, and are unthinkingly used as mere insults by the anti-evolution crowd.
I’ve debated this issue some and read a bit about it. The theist allegation boils down to a belief that worldview controls action. They believe all that’s wrong with the world could be alleviated if people would only subscribe to the tenants of their religious text. Yet, for thousands of years everyone did subscribe to the tenants of their religious text and it solved nothing.
The stakes are very different, and of far greater philosophical significance. Deep down, the crevo threads aren't about theory evolution at all, which is doing just fine as a genuine science. The ultimate issue is about how we think. And whether we think. The stakes are enormous.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I’m just wondering as to the effect of this “culture war” on human behavior. People have needs and these needs form the basis of human behavior. It seems to me that people behaved no better in the years that preceded the rise of humanism, communism and the other “ism’s” so much a part of the theist’s lexicon. Mao once lamented that all he really managed to do in his years of power was change a few lives around Beijing. His great communist revolution had failed to change the nature of men. Do the theists expect any better?
You:
I think you could be safe saying this conflict centers around man’s place in the cosmos as suggested by the theists and the humanists. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, but it’s a far more useful place to start than the painfully uninformed debate centering around evolution.
I wouldn't describe the conflict in worldviews as being between theists and humanists. Many science-minded people are theists, so the evolution side of our debates isn't strictly a non-theist position. And "humanist" is a philosophical position which carries far too much baggage for my taste. I may be in error, but I've been under the impression that humanism generaly involves atheism and socialism. That's not my position at all, and it's not at all what is represented by the evolution side of our typical debates.
The theist allegation boils down to a belief that worldview controls action. They believe all that’s wrong with the world could be alleviated if people would only subscribe to the tenants of their religious text. Yet, for thousands of years everyone did subscribe to the tenants of their religious text and it solved nothing.
Probably true. During the 1,000 years in Europe generally known as the Dark Ages, theism was the general rule, and no objective observer could claim that human life then was a better deal than it is now. But the problem, in my opinion, isn't theism. I see two problems during the Dark Ages: (1) the lack of separation between church and state, which gave religion way too much coercive power; and (2) the absence of what we now call a scientific worldview to supliment the theistic worldview and to enhance the human condition. And I think that points 1 and 2 are what are really at stake in the evolution-creationism debates.
I have no need to address or refute anything you say. I don’t debate evolution on these boards because I don’t have the requisite background to add anything to the debate. I’m not a biologist. I am a consumer rather than producer of scientific information.
Do you have a refutation for the above or are just choosing to ignore it?
Just as I’m under no obligation to explain to a telemarketer why I don’t want their product, I’m under no obligation to express why I accept evolution to you. Let it suffice to say that I know when someone is trying to rip me off.
There is a lot of importance to it even if people do not realize it.
I doubt it.
Evolution is the basis of the scientific materialism which has been the source of so much death and destruction.
And things were just sooo much better before materialism.
It is also the source of the decline of morality and conservative values.
Decline? Could you tell me precisely when we were a more moral people than we are today? Use dates and statistics because I’m a bit slow. Perhaps you could start by showing me the murder rate in our nation over the past two hundred years. Then you might want to show me some crime rates. You’ll of course want to emphasize the divorce rates, but for extra credit why don’t you look at the adultery rates in our nation. Look at the number of abortions then look at the numbers of discarded and abandoned children. Get ready for some big surprises. I'll give you a hint: the past sucked.
So it is very important the problem is that too many people are unaware of its importance.
I think you vastly overestimate the effect of worldview on human behavior. But don’t despair, a lot of other people have made this same mistake.
Nevertheless, in spite of your admitted ignorance you continue to insult my statements. Typical evo!
And things were just sooo much better before materialism.
I think 100 million dead by the followers of Darwin's so called 'scientific materialism' in the 20th century is sufficient proof that things were indeed better.
I would concur; I tend to use “humanist” in the classical sense, someone who subscribes to “a system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth”. Such a system doesn’t preclude the existence of God or the validity of spiritual thought. I speak of men like Da Vinci who was without a doubt a believer. But I understand it is a loaded term.
Yet theists feel most threatened by a scientific worldview, particularly those who accept a literal interpretation of their holy books. It seems to me such men reject humanism because they believe men have no worth apart from God. Reason may supplement faith but reason must remain subservient. When reason in the form of scientific inquiry contradicts revealed truth, science must be rejected. Thus they often cite the failures of materialism, with an emphasis on the atrocities of Communists and Fascists. Reason without religious guidance leads to disaster, as men are too intrinsically corrupt to be reasonable. Thus evolution is a product of men’s desire to sin rather than the fruits of his intellectual labors. The terms humanist and theist are not entirely accurate but do denote what I believe is the essence of the conflicting worldviews – the intrinsic worth of human beings.
I may be in error, but I've been under the impression that humanism generaly involves atheism and socialism. That's not my position at all, and it's not at all what is represented by the evolution side of our typical debates.
There are some die hard atheists who have represented the evolution side on Freerepublic in the last several years. Lazamataz comes to mind. I myself consider the issues separate and do not consider myself an atheist. Yet I think that accepting evolution as an accurate account of our origins precludes a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I see two problems during the Dark Ages: (1) the lack of separation between church and state, which gave religion way too much coercive power; and (2) the absence of what we now call a scientific worldview to supliment the theistic worldview and to enhance the human condition. And I think that points 1 and 2 are what are really at stake in the evolution-creationism debates.
You speak of separation and supplementation but do you really believe that such disparate world views can co-exist? I have my doubts. If two men are driving a car approaching a cliff and one wishes to turn right while the other left, can they compromise and continue moving forward?
The culture war is important because I don’t believe these two worldviews can co-exist. One will eventually become supplemental and perhaps that’s the first step to becoming vestigial. Which one will prevail? I believe that issue will be decided by the needs of the audience rather than the actors in our little play. Time will tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.