Posts by Deputy Dog

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

I don't think you can draw that line based on "appearance". I'm sure there are/were many humans that looked more apelike than other humans and apes that appeared more human than other apes. I think this is the problem with much of the science on the topic today. Genetics actually make the real determination.

If there is as much variation in humans as there is in other species, like dogs for example, we could all be surprised by what is possible within the human genome.

I think the line is drawn (scientificly) by the possibility of a mating that produces fertal, viable offspring. I don'think I'm stating something that most of us don't already know.

57

Do people praying out loud in public disturb you?

by Mad Sweeney in

jw
friends

i am sitting here in a study lounge.

when i got here around 15 minutes ago the only ones here were two young ladies and a young man, sitting around a table with their eyes closed.

the young man was talking.

Deputy Dog

Not only are you a jerk.

I'm going to have to look up some agnostic/atheist groups around here and see what they have going on in the way of public education. These religious conservative kids are not only voters, they're going to breed even MORE voters. Ugh.

You're a Christophobe!

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Deputy Dog

Cadellin

One of the fundamental differences b/w evolution and creation is the belief that species arise through acts of special creation, not from existing species. Hence, it follows that, according to creation, species (or "kinds," whatever they are) are "stand-alone" groups, unique from other "kinds," with no intermediaries or transitions, extant or fossilised.

You mean creation as the WT teaches it. Be aware that very few agree with the WT school. They don't speak for all or even most creationists.

For example:

"...There is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a "kind."

How does the WT know what the limit is "within a 'kind'."?

This is not what we see in the real world. Rather, transitions--or transitional features--abound.

I agree, there is much variation (within a kind) in the real world. However, I wouldn't call these variations "transitional" into another kind.

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Deputy Dog

Creation, by contrast, coming from a perfect God Designer, predicts that things SHOULD be cut-and-dry, easily demarcated, discrete entities or kinds and no relation whatsoever b/w--uh, "basic kinds," whatever that is.

Really? You learned that at what school?

23

Bart Ehrman says the text about women being submissive on 1 Cor 14 was forged

by dgp in

in "forged: writing in the name of god.

why the bible's authors are not who we think they are" (http://www.amazon.com/forged-writing-god--why-bibles-authors/dp/0062012614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=utf8&qid=1302541788&sr=8-1), bart ehrman points out that the section of 1 corinthians were women are told to remain silent in church is most likely an addition by someone other than saint paul.. .

ehrman writes:.

Deputy Dog

PS

I think his problem is he's not happy with how God's treating him. You know all that evil and suffering. That is why he claims he's agnostic now.

23

Bart Ehrman says the text about women being submissive on 1 Cor 14 was forged

by dgp in

in "forged: writing in the name of god.

why the bible's authors are not who we think they are" (http://www.amazon.com/forged-writing-god--why-bibles-authors/dp/0062012614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=utf8&qid=1302541788&sr=8-1), bart ehrman points out that the section of 1 corinthians were women are told to remain silent in church is most likely an addition by someone other than saint paul.. .

ehrman writes:.

Deputy Dog

My question to Ehrman would be; why does he (an Agnostic) care so much about what women do in the church? He left the church years ago. Does he want them to stay in or leave?

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Deputy Dog

bohm

To return to the species-problem, which of the two ideas, evolution or creation, is our inability to properly define species and/or fit them with fossils a consequence of?.

Why did YOU inject "creation" into the discussion? As TD seems to want to point out, belief is irrelevant in this discussion. If evolution is as sound as you believe, redefine it with new terms, which is what I think TD is trying to do. Why blame the creation idea for evolution's philosophical problems?

I'm simply questioning the "science" of evolution. If we can agree on the WHAT, maybe we can start to discuss the HOW. Should we try to think about the difference between science and philosophy, and the consequence of confusing the two.

77

On Human Evolution

by TD in

jw
friends

it's a subject that comes up fairly often here (understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed.

much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.. i'd like to propose a different approach.

we all know what each other's conclusions are (or at least we should by now).

Deputy Dog

JonathanH

But taxonomy while having a function in biology, is from a pragmatic standpoint just a human invention to catagorize things we see a relationship in. If you travelled back in time five thousand years and showed somebody a french bulldog, do you really think they would make the connection that this thing is in fact of the same "kind" (whatever that means) as the vicious pack hunters that they were gradually bred from? Or would they think that this snorting, short, stocky, boxy shaped animal is just another wierd creature that they've never seen before? There is no such thing as "kind", there is no "dog gene" that makes a dog a dog, and not some other animal that is part of a different "kind". We mistake taxanomy which is simply catagorizing things that are similar (and today they are catagorized by evolutionary and genetic lineages, and not simple morphological similarity as ancient people would've done), as concrete lines seperating one thing from another. They are not. Life is just blending shades of grey.

I think you nailed it (even though we have probably reached different conclusions), but isn't that a two edged sword? Using bones/fossils alone to solve this problem (or answer the question) leaves way to much room for speculation and controversy.

Of course the answer to that is obvious to those that took any courses in biology or genetics. There isn't one. A species diverges (or rather a speciation event occurs) not because some essential part of their gene changes, but because a large enough portion of their genes have changed that they can't succesffully produce offspring anymore, and due to sexual selection, they probably wouldn't try to anyway.

Oh... really? Well... if that's the real definition of species, why are we even looking at bones and fossils at all?

Using dogs for example, look at the huge variety in one single species, compared to the few in the photos above (which is supposed to represent two). I wish I had a picture of all the different breeds side by side, yet they are all one species.

TD

BTW Good topic.

175

Does the Christian message fall apart without a literal interpretation of Genesis?

by nicolaou in

.

what's the point of jesus if adam & eve did not 'fall' and condemn us all to sin?.

Deputy Dog

Tammy

But I do have a measure for how I understand things (test things, as we are supposed to test the spirits), and that is through Christ.

Yea... you make up a context as you go along.

1 John 4 tells you to test the spirits. The way you apply the test, you make every prophet in the bible out to be a false one.

175

Does the Christian message fall apart without a literal interpretation of Genesis?

by nicolaou in

.

what's the point of jesus if adam & eve did not 'fall' and condemn us all to sin?.

Deputy Dog

Gary

Thanks for posting that. That little video illustrates the shallow state of most people today. While I don't agree with the conclusions, it's a point well taken. I don't require agreement, but, clarity would be a nice place to start a deeper discussion.

Even as a believer I catch more heat from the "Christians" than the unbelievers when I field those... difficult verses.