In the beginning, an unknown force caused an inexplicable explosion, based on unknown rules of physics, to create an implausible universe. And “nobody” said that it was meaningless.

And the inexplicable matter turned into giant rocks. And (after a magically long time) the rocks turned into people.

Now THAT’S faith baby!

If the Earth had been created yesterday in the known universe, you’d still see the same night sky – all light inbound to that point from all parts of the universe would be visible instantly. (Were you trying to make a different point?)

RD on May 7, 2007 at 9:41 PM

That’s assuming the stars were already in existence. If the Earth were created 10,000 years ago (along with the stars in the sky) light from many of the stars wouldn’t have yet reached us. Does the pro-10,000 year crowd believe that stars are only 10,000 years old as well?

… please source me an item where Progressives see people as perfect.

Nonfactor on May 5, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Why? The accusation against Progressive ideologies (and other derivatives of utopian thinking) is not that they see human beings as perfect, but as perfectible.

If the earth was created in only thousands of years, many of the stars we see in the night sky would not be visible. The light from those stars would not have managed to travel to earth in the time frames involved.

tommy1 on May 6, 2007 at 9:11 PM

?

If the Earth had been created yesterday in the known universe, you’d still see the same night sky – all light inbound to that point from all parts of the universe would be visible instantly. (Were you trying to make a different point?)

Rusted Bill:

You still haven’t told me what salt tastes like.

Doghouse on May 7, 2007 at 11:40 AM

It has long been an axiom on the Internet that when someone starts taking… liberties… with people’s names it is tacit admission that they are incapable of rational argument.

And you don’t just sound condescending. You sound like a disrespectful dick

RightWinged on May 7, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Coming from RightWinged this means A LOT!

Its not a “vast majority”, its not even close. Its nowhere near mainstream belief. And even if it was, that wouldn’t make you any more or less correct, would it? If a billion people believe a falsehood, that doesn’t make it true.

Sorry if I sound condescending, its kind of hard when someone is arguing that there is no proof of evolution, and then proceeds to tell me GOD did it.

Oh man, I can’t even roll my eyes that far back into my head. Itd give me too much of a headache.

triple on May 7, 2007 at 2:06 PM

I wasn’t even arguing with you or saying “God did it” about anything. AGAIN read the entire context of the comment. YOU, after much whining said in a pissy way that you don’t care what others believe as long as we leave it out of the political arena… But you were creating something to complain about, because we aren’t protesting outside the doors of presidential candidates, demanding that they agree, etc. It was leftist Chris Matthews who asked a stupid irrelevant question. But again, YOU are the one getting pissy about us putting it in the political arena.

And back to the context about majority opinion. You sound like a child. You can’t just stay on point. ALL I said was that the vast majority of people agree with creationists, whether they call themselves that or not. I didn’t say this was evidence for being right, and I didn’t even imply it. You just can’t argue the actual argument, you have to keep diverting which makes you come off like a liberal by the way. Your methods are exactly the same. First you quoted me WAY out of context and ignored the real point. Now you’re kind of doing the same thing, and making up new things to complain about that I never even said.

By the way, I find it interesting that you want to tell me that consensus doesn’t make someone right (which AGAIN, I never even insinuated), yet consensus is what evolutionists turn to in frustration when they can’t convince us. How many times have we heard the sarcastic “okay, so all the scientists are wrong, but you creationists are right?”

And you don’t just sound condescending. You sound like a disrespectful dick… and not to me so much, but to the others. You have no reason to be, especially when you claim not to care what others think. I rarely do this, but I’ve got to say, you’re battling against an underlying belief in God. You’re fighting so hard to deny his existence, it shows in your anger and disrespect.

tommy1 on May 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

I’m not sure who you’re arguing with, but it doesn’t seem to be me. I’d suggest you re-read the original article that sparked this thread, then re-read what I actually had to say about it (if it actually matters to you).

Again, it’s not a fringe group, it’s a vast majority of the population, period. Tone down your condescension and your attitude. For someone who is so above it all with your Darwinist knowledge, you sure seem to want to angrily complain about creationists a lot.

Its not a “vast majority”, its not even close. Its nowhere near mainstream belief. And even if it was, that wouldn’t make you any more or less correct, would it? If a billion people believe a falsehood, that doesn’t make it true.

Sorry if I sound condescending, its kind of hard when someone is arguing that there is no proof of evolution, and then proceeds to tell me GOD did it.

Oh man, I can’t even roll my eyes that far back into my head. Itd give me too much of a headache.

“Traditional social roles for men and women have evolved naturally over time, therefore adherence to traditional roles for men and women will continue to benefit society.”

Very few evolutionists I know claim this. Most, however, believe such roles can be understood in the context of human biology and that deviations from such roles tend to lead to unexpected difficulties. I think that is pretty well born out by the facts.

“Free-market capitalism provides a competitive environment like that of the Galapagos Islands, therefore free-market capitalism will produce desirable results in the future.”

As opposed to what, Communism? What is your definition of “desirable?” I have a feeling your rejection of this probably stems from a difference of opinion as to what is a desirable outcome with the “Social Darwinists” you object to. This argument would be better aimed at libertarians who argue simultaneously that libertarian economic policy is moral in the sense that it rewards the best players and also leads to the best possible outcome for everyone in society at any given point in time. Classical Social Darwinists, like Herbert Spencer, have never concerned themselves with whether the majority of society benefits at any given time from such an economic approach.

“Governmental checks and balances can serve a purpose similar to evolutionary environmental pressures, therefore they will ensure a certain degree of robustness in future society.”

Again, as opposed to what? A lack of checks and balances? What do you mean by robustness? If you mean conservatism in governance, I would say that the facts support the idea that the more checks and balances that are in place, there is indeed necessarily greater conservatism since there are more people to veto novel propositions.

If tomorrow a discovery in quantum physics allowed us to overcome the force of gravity, does that mean that gravity should have been ignored all these centuries as intrinsically worthless?

I’m not a Social Darwinist, but Derbyshire is right: we shouldn’t ignore evolution.

Begging the question. I ask you for examples of the social Darwinian assertions you claim have no predictive power and you respond by effectively saying “you know, those evolutionary ones.” How about some examples, please.

“Traditional social roles for men and women have evolved naturally over time, therefore adherence to traditional roles for men and women will continue to benefit society.”

“Free-market capitalism provides a competitive environment like that of the Galapagos Islands, therefore free-market capitalism will produce desirable results in the future.”

“Governmental checks and balances can serve a purpose similar to evolutionary environmental pressures, therefore they will ensure a certain degree of robustness in future society.”

All of these predictions appeal to value judgments of a kind that biological evolution has no interest in whatsoever.

You still haven’t told me what salt tastes like.

Well I can certainly understand why some conservatives don’t believe in the concept of evolution. ;^)

honora on May 7, 2007 at 10:51 AM

(Just when I thought that Monday morning was the worst problem that I currently have on my hands, you-know-who shows up.)

Nothin’ for Catholic school girls to see here. Move along.

mea culpa. Spelling atrocious as ususal. Yup. It’s Monday morning.

You you make a SPLENDID politician. You talk a lot, but you don’t say anything.

CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 8:24 AM

Okay so that was harsh. I apologize. (Yes, I’m even GRUMPIER on Monday mornings.)

I never SAID that the Marxist ideal was desirable, or the it should be the target model for anyone’s society. I was only trying to say that if you accept the premises of “Man’s nature is basically good.” and “Man’s is capable of evolving into a higher order social being, i.e. utopia on earth is possible.” then Marx’s ideology SHOULD have been workable in one form or another. But the fact is, not only did Communism fail, but socialism has rendered the countries of Europe a mere shadow of their former selves. This ALL came about because of a fundamental mis-understanding on the part of the high-brow (so-called)intellectuals regarding the nature of man. Modern symbolic logic teaches us that if you accept premises at the outset the contradict themselves, it doesn’t matter how flawless your logic is, you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese. This is akin to the snake-oil that Marx and Lenin sold to Europe. It is ironic that SUCH calamity can be the direct result of a fundamental misunderstanding of something so basic and rudimentary as human nature.

Nor did I say that “we shouldn’t aim for the best in our own lives.” You are reading a lot a things into my comments that I never said. One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that we should indeed strife to be the best human being that we can be and that we utilize our talents for the greater good.

As for the remainder of your comments, for the most part, it seems to me that you have a penchant/flair for stating the obvious.

I just have to note that archeology is CONSTANTLY confirming stories from the Bible. I’m not claiming that this proves “God”, but it’s worth noting.

As I mentioned in another thread along these lines, proof of a location does not provide proof of an event or person. I submit that the discovery of Troy does not prove Achillies near immortality or Jason’s adventures. At some point I’ll have to finish the giant blog post. It’s long on speculation and short on research at this point.

In a nutshell, though, the only religions archeologists and historians aren’t allowed to dissemble, for fear of offense, are the Abrahamic ones. There are people out there who feverishly wish to prove that Noah’s wacky adventures actually happened as written. There are people looking for the Garden of Eden. There are people convinced the sun stood still so Joshua could win a battle, and will go to great lengths to prove it. Those people are unhinged.

There are, for instance, 3 or 4 popular dates for the Exodus. Which says to me that the story is a combination of other stories with a bit of embellishment. All the dating and all the evidence says it did not happen as related in the Bible.

I kinda like the Tutmoses theory of Moses myself, although uit is not the whole story. Answers some nagging questions and asks a bunch more.

Doghouse on May 7, 2007 at 2:33 AM

Standard non-answers, red herrings and logical fallacies.

Oh, and

I’m not the one who seems to claim a glorious throne for narrow and finite human science.

Show where I did that.

You you make a SPLENDID politician. you talk a lot, but you don’t say anything.

If human nature offers ONLY potentials (as you say),
the statistical sciences say that the probability that Shangrai-La exists somewhere on the planet is almost a certainty. But the facts say otherwise. No where on the planet, and at no time in history has a social group of humans built even a localized utopia.

The mistake is using god-like perfection as a standard with which to gauge beings that are fallible by nature. There never will be a “Shangrai-La”. That doesn’t mean it is misguided to aim for the best in our own lives, but those negative traits Hobbes listed will always exist to some degree in every society.

If human nature was basically good, as the humantists all claim, then Karl Marx SHOULD HAVE been correct. It SHOULD be possible to evolve into a communistic society where crime disappears and every man “receives his reward according to the caliber of his work.” Throughout history there have been PLENTY of isolated groups of humans(socially/geographically/genetically).

The assumption here is that a Communistic society is the
moral ideal for which we should aim. It isn’t. The Communistic ideal may be suitable for some kind of alien life form but it is certainly destructive to humans for the reason being that it treats individual self-interest as a flaw, sinful, something to be punished and eradicated. Hence humans get slaughtered by the millions, and “solitary, poor, treacherous, dumb, nasty” becomes the norm. Every life form has to act in its own self interest for its very survival. Humans are no different, hence people as a whole prosper under capitalism with its individual freedom and are prisoners to a miserable existence under Communism. And this —>”It SHOULD be possible to evolve into a communistic society where crime disappears and every man “receives his reward according to the caliber of his work.” is just plain illogical because it places a universal value on someone’s work. Just another one of Marx’s monstrous gaffs. What’s of value to me may not be of value to you. Every person has their own hierarchy of values which changes over time. It’s part of what makes each one of us unique rather than conformist robots or, in this case, conformist robotic indentured servants in Communist la-la land. We negotiate worth. That’s the moral way to conduct trade of value for value.

The evidence that there is something fundamentally flawed and evil about human nature is overwhelming.

I think you need to question the efficacy of what you regard as the human ideal. Pressing upon mankind a fundamentally flawed ideology tends to result in a great deal of death and destruction with all those negative traits Hobbes seems to think dominates us all, multiplied.

>To date, there is no independently verifiable evidence to confirm the existence of any of the various deities claimed by the numerous religions.

Nor have we seen any independently verifiable evidence to confirm the non-existence of any of the various deities claimed by the numerous religions. So what?

>When you have proof for your particular myth, get back to me.

Again, I ask, “Why?” It’s the kind of thing you have to find out for yourself. I’m not the one who seems to claim a glorious throne for narrow and finite human science.

Doghouse on May 7, 2007 at 2:33 AM

I just have to note that archeology is CONSTANTLY confirming stories from the Bible. I’m not claiming that this proves “God”, but it’s worth noting.

It’s also always worth noting that evolution has been set up in a way that it’s unfalsifiable. No matter how much evidence flows in that contradicts the theory, they always adjust the theory to fit the new evidence without questioning the theory. I’ve listed just a few examples in this thread, a few in others, and there are literally thousands upon thousands. It’s sad that because evolution is assumed, “scientists” always have to wildly speculate as to how the contradictory evidence still allows for the overall theory to work, despite never supplying evidence.

Why? I know it’s true, and the only way you’ll know that it’s true is through your own personal experience. If you want to know whether it’s true or not, do what it takes to gain that experience. If you don’t want to know whether it’s true or not, don’t do what it takes.

>I submit that the entire concept of religion is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated by man.

Interesting, though narrow, view, but personal experience always trumps an interesting, though narrow, view.

Try this. Explain to me what salt tastes like. (And saying that it’s “salty” doesn’t count.) I would say that you can’t give an accurate description of the taste of salt. Does that mean that salt has no taste? No. Personal experience tasting salt gives us first-hand knowledge of that. But you have to taste the salt to know it for sure.

Not a perfect analogy, but more than sufficient as a reply to somebody who likely has no intention of listening in the first place. (Maybe you do, but I have yet to meet an atheist who had any interest in anything more than empty debate when it comes to spiritual/religious issues.)

>To date, there is no independently verifiable evidence to confirm the existence of any of the various deities claimed by the numerous religions.

Nor have we seen any independently verifiable evidence to confirm the non-existence of any of the various deities claimed by the numerous religions. So what?

>When you have proof for your particular myth, get back to me.

Again, I ask, “Why?” It’s the kind of thing you have to find out for yourself. I’m not the one who seems to claim a glorious throne for narrow and finite human science.

I’m referring to the notion that one can somehow take the lessons of biological evolution and apply them to political theory in such a way as to justify policies that one claims will produce desirable outcomes.

Begging the question. I ask you for examples of the social Darwinian assertions you claim have no predictive power and you respond by effectively saying “you know, those evolutionary ones.” How about some examples, please.