|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2002 : 18:22:04 [Permalink]
|
James> I somewhat knew that it would be “no”. But as is often the case with strange assumptions (ufos are flying saucers, God exists etc), the proponents use argument ad ignorantum, and I like to try and discuss that with them.
Dino> I'll just toss my two oeres (Danish cents) into the debate on where the burden of proof lies. And it lies on who makes the assertion of a positive. As in “A exists.” You can't prove the non-existence of a thing, you see.
Yes, you are still here, but I just noticed a remarkable lack of responds, to anything of the sort: You assert. A Sceptic replies.
If we are talking faith, then there will be no proof. Faith is just that. Faith or belief. There are many religious people around, who do not claim an entity created the Earth 7000 years ago and who do not take the bible literally. To them, God is a personal thing, whatever this God is.
I do not have faith in, say, evolution. I have seen enough proof, to know it happened that way.
And if God is a matter of faith, then he/she/it would hardly leave proofs of his/her/its existence around, save for “the word” as a guideline for human living and behaviour.
But I suppose that's theology.
The evolutionary process possesses constraints? What constraints? If some mutation does not work, that particular species will not survive. If a species can't adapt to a new environment it will become extinct.
A normal mechanical process can be tested theoretically, before implemented into reality. There is no theoretical thinking on behalf of nature, before a mutation occurs.
I don't see how the knee can't evolve due to being an irreducible mechanism. As it is, the knee works just fine, and don't really need evolving right now.
When our forefathers in the far past started using tools, we got the need for using both hands, and the knee did change to support bipedal walking. Which is also why apes have different knees, as they still can't stand fully on two legs for a long time.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
 |
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2002 : 03:23:00 [Permalink]
|
"I don't see how the knee can't evolve due to being an irreducible mechanism. As it is, the knee works just fine, and don't really need evolving right now." (Omega)
You obviously haven't got my knees!
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2002 : 09:46:03 [Permalink]
|
(chuckle) He doesn't have mine, either, Notty.
Kinda makes a case for further evolution needed. Or God screwed up again, depending on how you look at it.
f
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2002 : 09:51:57 [Permalink]
|
The idea behind "Irreducible Complexity" requires you to see life as though it were a model airplane kit. The parts have to fit together exactly or the thing won't work. In other words you need a creator.
Evolution doesn't make these huge demands but makes do with what ya got.
The thought of a knee having to be exactly like a knee to have it work exactly like a knee is correct. However the assumption is that if it didn't work exactly like a knee it wouldn't work at all is baloney.
If we run the film "The Irreducible Knee" backwards we find that by reducing it just a little it is no longer good for long walks on the beach. BUT it still works for the twenty-yard dash and if you use the knuckles of your hands occasionally, you can get around just fine.
More reduction and it doesn't work so well on the ground at all but it is great hopping around in the trees.
More and it doesn't work so well in the trees but does quite nicely if the front arms are also legs.
More and it doesn't support body weight that well but is a fine thick fin for holding the body on the bottom in swift currents and even taking small strolls along the muddy river banks.
More and it doesn't work as a knee at all but makes a nice thin fin for swimming.
More and it isn't a fin any more but a nifty piece of "boney" armor.
More and it isn't armor but makes a super repository for the body to store calcium in -- which would enable you to leave salt water and finally swim into the fresh water streams that cover the land.
The complexity of the knee is very "reducible."
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2002 : 18:02:07 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp> Noo, not last time I checked :D
Filthy> She, last time I checked! :)
Okay, so your knees don't work. Proof God doesn't exist! Yay, QED!
Slater> Nice “film” description.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 09:32:48 [Permalink]
|
Wow, this thread seem to spring up out of nowhere. I just wanted to add one thing. The question was asked about St Paul. I would encourage you(once you have read everything else and gone to all the other links posted) to check out a book called "The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity", by Hyam MacCoby. It is a real eye opener from a student of the Talmud. It may be hard to find, but i think you can order it at BArnes and Nobles. As to all the C/E stuff I think it has been covered pretty well. By the way if anyone else has read this book I would like to know what you thought. E-mail me or IM me. It doesn't go well with this post. Thanks
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 11:04:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
. I would encourage you... to check out a book called "The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity", by Hyam MacCoby. It is a real eye opener from a student of the Talmud.
Wolf, if you check out some of the newer works by people like Paul Kurtz you'll see that there is a whole school of thought that Paul wasn't actually the "myth-maker" but only part of the myth. Current thought is that Paul was at least three different authors.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 11:21:04 [Permalink]
|
Hey Slater, Could you give me a little more info about that. I have been spending some time at www.jesuspuzzle.com and it talks about Jesus being a myth. I found that info very interesting. I have not heard anything on what you are talking about. Any info would be great. These are things that Dinon may also want to look into.
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 12:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Sure, Helms has 2 books that cover the subject. Who Wrote the Gospels? and Gospel Fictions.
Since both of these books leave Helms open to attack he has covered himself with tons of research and references. This tends to make them less "readable" than a straight narrative would be, but they are worth the effort.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
