That is uncalled for. While I disagree with bodswood, he has participated in this debate with intelligence and sincerity. He doesn’t deserve to be laughed at.
I would add to this list the extinct species. Why did God create them and then remove them? I’d especially like to know about the various extinct hominids, brothers to the last survivors, us. Why did God create intelligent species and then remove them?
[QUOTE=sevastopol]
I disagree with Dawkins and Priceguy as to the beliefs of some intelligent people for the reasons I’ve stated above/QUOTE]
If I read you correctly, you’re saying that intelligent people stick with religion because it makes them warm and comfortable, and therefore they reject the parts of science that, they feel, go against their religion. That’s either ignorance (possibly wilful ignorance, mind, but ignorance nonetheless) or insanity.
Priceguy
As you know I was half joking. The half that wasn’t joke says that intelligent people can reject scientific method. Preferring instead the mystic, or supernatural.
Possessing intelligence doesn’t invalidate human needs.
However, may I commend you and strongly concur with your previous post:
I think it is worth noting that it is possible to occupy some of those categories (or more than one at the same time) and still be very sincere - not that this helps objectively, but it would be easy to read an implication of insincerity along with all of the four categories when they are baldly stated.
I’ll agree he has a pleasant, sincere demeanour and can spell, punctuate and form a grammatically correct sentence. As for intelligent; it seems we have different interpretations of his non-sequitur replies, illogical conclusions and inability to effectively deal with inconvenient evidence. He deserves what anybody else deserves; the freedom to speak his mind. He most definitely doesn’t deserve freedom from ridicule. Nobody does.
It’s the pleasant, sincere demeanour that makes me want to have a pint with him. The rest also makes me want to have a pint with him but largely for the purpose of piss-taking. If his views are sincere, as I suspect they are, no harm done as he thinks the jokes on everyone else.
I haven’t read the thread as closely as I probably should, but to me these speak more of a closed mind than a stupid one. More than that, I see (perhaps through wishful thinking) in bodswood someone with the capacity to actually change his mind, which I think is valuable (and more or less the point of a debate). A fundamentalist zealot wouldn’t ask “Does the fossil record rule this out?”. He wouldn’t even entertain the possibility. And if we can change bodswood’s mind, I don’t believe it is through ridicule.
I shouldn’t have used the word “deserve”, I usually don’t deal in abstract rubbish like that.
Actually, I believe bodswood is in the process of asking himself difficult questions which he has unconsciously ignored throughout his life to date.
He deserves our respect and encouragement in what might be a difficult and uncertain time.
I’ve also considered the possibility that he might change his mind. In fact, it’s why I actually asked how his opinions might have been changed by the discussion. I’m convinced that I wasn’t out of line with my comment which was actually no more than an aside to a sincere question. However, if it were to contribute to bodswood not returning to the discussion I can only offer my sincerest apologies.
Sorry bodswood.
Given the simplicity of the notion, what prompts you to reject such a notion? To what do you attribute the similarity or dissimilarity of various living things, if not to common descent?
And please note up front that “similarity of way of life” is not sufficent to address the observed similarity. Insectivorous bats and insectivorous birds, for example, lead similar lifestyles. Based on a cursory and superficial examination, one does, indeed, find similarities between them: they have wings, and can fly; they have bones; they eat bugs; and so on. However, when one examines them on a more detailed level, one finds that they are truly very different animals. One also finds that birds share many features in common with crocodiles (and common descent aside, there would be no reason to expect them to!), while bats appear most similar to animals such as shrews and primates!
Similarly, killer whales and sharks lead similar lifestyles, and again are superficially similar. But even a superficial examination shows distinct differences, and deeper examination reveals vast differences between them. But, that same deep examination reveals remarkable similarities between killer whales and assorted herbivorous grazers of the savannah - similarities which are not shared with the shark (which itself is most similar to other fish).
Such differences and similarities make sense from the point of view of common descent. How does one explain them without such?
I think the reason so many are willing to call some ignorant if he does not accept evolution as a scientific fact is how people come to that conclusion. Do you know of anyone **without a religioius bias ** who weighed the evidence and decided that evolutoin was bunk? Most (I might say all) doubters of evolution came to the discussion with a built-in bias that evolution is false. A built-in bias based on a religious notion of a creator. That is not how science works.
Once again, for bodswood. ID is not science. I’m not saying it’s bad science, or incorrect science-- it is NOT science. If you believe it is, you need to show us how the scientific method has been applied to it. How has it been proposed as a hypothesis, what experiments have been performed to verify it, how have the experiments been repeated, and what predictions has it made that have been observed to be true?
I’d like to point out that evolution being a fact does not require absolute common descent (all living beings are descended from one original organism.) It is perfectly acceptable for there to have been multiple abiogenesis events, each of which forming a separate bush of life. There is no evidence for this on earth, and overwhelming evidence against it. If there were separate events, all but one went extinct. However if we discovered some primtive life form somewhere not using DNA, it does not invalidate evolution in the least.
The reason I asked about what bodswood considered a test of evolution before was that the fossil record is a strong test. Every time a fossil is dug up, there is the opportunity to falsify evolution. That it has never happened is very good indication that evolution is true. bodswood, have you heard about the Paluxy tracks? If they were real evolution would have a serious problem. Those creationists who continue to use them as evidence against evolution, even after they have been rejected even by creationists, are either very, very stupid or wicked in my book.
I know precisely one such person - my boss - although it would not be fair to say that he has properly examined much of the evidence; a typical conversation with him goes:
**Him: **There’s something wrong with people that say life on Earth must have evolved; it’s just too bizarre to be true that ‘survival of the fittest’ produced all this - look at the giraffe - it is so ridiculously unsuited to survival that it can’t possibly have evolved!
**Me: **If the giraffe were ridiculously unsuited to survival, there wouldn’t be any giraffes.
**Him: **OK then, since having such a long neck is so great, why hasn’t every animal got one? Why haven’t sharks, humans and hamsters all got really long necks?
**Me: **Because what works well for one kind of animal in one kind of environment, might actually be detrimental to others in different environment; sharks, humans and hamsters don’t need to outcompete trees in order to get their food.
**Him: **I still don’t understand why everything is different; if all these things started off from a common ancestor, and something changed because it was beneficial, why didn’t they all change?
**Me: **Because the Earth is a big place with a wide diversity of ecological niches; an expanding population of one single kind of organism is going to get pushed into places where some things work better for some than others and vice versa; at some point, it becomes easier to make use of a brand new (but rather different) resource than it does to outcompete your peers for the same old one.
**Him: **You can’t just tell me that a fish would just decide, one day, to grow legs.
**Me: **No; in fact I *didn’t just tell you that…
He isn’t a religious man. He just gets an idea in his head and that’s it; he isn’t really listening to any counter arguments (in this and other areas) - all the while the other person is speaking, he isn’t listening at all; he’s deciding what he’ll say next.
Man! Do I win a wooden spoon or something for that coding?
If you want me to correct that mess, it’s gonna cost you a bottle of Tully.
If he doesn’t accept evolution, and he doesn’t think “God did it”, that only leaves aliens, doesn’t it?
Gest wrote: “bodswood, I’d go out on a limb and concede that you aren’t wicked but Dawkins still has three more reasons for why you are the way you are.”
Steady on now, gest! I’ve got a reputation to think of.
Gest also wrote: “I think a short summary of bodswood’s beliefs could be useful for this discussion. At the very least it will be entertaining. I wonder how he feels about The Great Flood, accuracy of carbon dating, deism, and factual accuracy of the Bible among other things. Also, how have these views changed over the course of this thread?”
Priceguy, all sentences in the above are fine by me. I don’t think Gest wishes to mock me (in a nasty way). Certainly I take no offence at any of this. Re the fourth and final point, the so-called contradictions in the Bible have never bothered me. Those in the New Testament especially tend to validate the story. If you’ve ever been involved in a law suit that has gone to court, you will appreciate that convergence in witness accounts is a very strong sign of lack of veracity rather than the opposite. Indeed, a paper I wrote on the subject appears in the latest edition of a journal in the Forensic Linguistics field.
As for two of the other three points (flood and carbon dating), I’d need to spend some more time on them. Re deism, I think my position would be that I don’t believe in it. If we’re talking about the same thing. Seems a bit half-cock to me!
Extinct species don’t pose a problem to me. Some species have become extinct during my lifetime. Environmental factors seem important here. Obviously, re “extinct hominids”, I don’t believe in them, so shed no tears at their demise. Which brings me to another point made on page 4:
“Humans were never discovered in lower, older layers among dinosaurs.”
I’ve been thinking about this recently. (Yes, I allow myself that luxury occasionally.) Could this be anything to do with the fact that humans usually dispose of their bodies carefully. (Not their own, of course.) If you burn a body or bury it in soft ground isn’t it likely to decompose? Am I not right in thinking that you need a cluster of conditions for effective fossilisation?
“Just to be clear, bodswood, you believe that humans co-existed with dinosaurs but you don’t believe that the Earth is 6000 years old?”
Well, I don’t believe in the latter, but I’m open to the former, inclined even to it.
Darwin’s Finch wrote: "And please note up front that “similarity of way of life” is not sufficent to address the observed similarity. Insectivorous bats and insectivorous birds, for example, lead similar lifestyles. Based on a cursory and superficial examination, one does, indeed, find similarities between them: they have wings, and can fly; they have bones; they eat bugs; and so on. However, when one examines them on a more detailed level, one finds that they are truly very different animals. One also finds that birds share many features in common with crocodiles (and common descent aside, there would be no reason to expect them to!), while bats appear most similar to animals such as shrews and primates!
Similarly, killer whales and sharks lead similar lifestyles, and again are superficially similar. But even a superficial examination shows distinct differences, and deeper examination reveals vast differences between them. But, that same deep examination reveals remarkable similarities between killer whales and assorted herbivorous grazers of the savannah - similarities which are not shared with the shark (which itself is most similar to other fish).
Such differences and similarities make sense from the point of view of common descent. How does one explain them without such?"
One thing about me is that I am astounded by the natural world. My family keeps dwarf hamsters and I never cease to be amazed at how these little creatures (1 oz. In weight) behave like humans in so many ways. Indeed, the main thing that distinguishes us is their lack of sentimentality, which also disappears from humans when we are put to the test. Think war, think conceentration camps, think Great Leap Forward. I agree with all your above obseravtions, but still don’t believe this compels (logically-speaking) belief in common descent.
Mangetout wrote: “all the while the other person is speaking, he isn’t listening at all; he’s deciding what he’ll say next.” I think that a common inherited survival trait!!
Just an early morning post (for me) consisting of a digest of your points and my answers or evasions! If I haven’t addressed what someone has said, it’s probably because either I’ve attempted to address it before or I have nothing to say on the matter yet. Thanks everyone for their input!
PS Are there any women in this debate?
Substitute chimpanzees, dogs/wolves, cats, elephants, or any other “modern” animal and you get the same results. No modern criiters next to dinosaurs; no dinosaurs next to trilobites. (Also, we do have the skeletons of pre-historic humans, so the idea that all the humans were successfully incinerated or composted fails on the evidence.)
Tom, by “pre-historic humans” are you referring to something clearly different to modern humans (e.g. you and me)? Are these skeletons (in particular, the skulls) preserved in entirety? Is it impossible to rule out that they belonged to another type of advanced animal?
Bodswood, there really are quite a lot of fossil hominid remains that we have discovered, especially in the last 20 years. Oh, and by “hominid” I just mean creatures that clearly are not apes, but belong in the same family as Homo sapiens.
Not to beat a dead horse, but TalkOrigins has a huge listing of most famous hominid finds, along with pictures and descriptions. Browse on over there and check them out:
We’ve found a whole lot of prehistoric human bodies (ie homo sapiens, anatomically modern humans), certainly enough to discount your “perhaps all humans at the time of the dinosaurs were buried / burned so that they would decompose” hypothesis.
There are also a great deal of evidence of other ‘advanced animals’, including hominids which may be the precursors of humans (eg australopithecines). Once again, the hominids tend to be in separate geological zones from human remains (less easy to see with recent developments such as these, as compared to dinosaurs) and the remains are clearly older, as determined by carbon dating.
The human remains are newer than the semi-human hominid remains, the semi-human remains are newer than the dinosaurs’ remains, the dinosaurs’ remains are newer than the remains of the first land animals, the first land animals remains are newer than those of the first sea animals, and so on. There are fossils of varying completeness, but millions of them have been categorised.
The only evidence we have for humans and dinosaurs living together is the Flintstones.