h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..


fair point well made.

Kaeori - Don't leave. Just because you have a better grasp of the subject than most. Mind you, you could have been a tad more tactful. But I have to agree - the argument is going nowhere because the concepts being bandied about are not properly understood. (Damn, now I'm not being tactful). No serious phycisist or theologian or mystic would argue this subject in these terms. This is a 19th Century argument.

I forgive your (slight) tactlessness for the simple reasons that it livens things up a bit, raises the stakes and hopefully the rigour with which people state their cases, and because I like it and because you appear to know what you are talking about.

The probability issue concerning proteins is interesting. There is a strong body of opinion that life starts with the first autocataclytic set - the first sustained structure and self-replicating thing. It has been suggested very convincingly that such sets emerge in any sufficiently large 'soup' of chemicals as a direct result of mathematics and the nature of complexity. The suggestion is that life is not just not improbable, but that it is a damn near certainty. This is a view that I believe will be widely endorsed by the science community within a couple of years. (And probably taught in school starting sometime in about 200 years time!)

You're right about infinity, but you must know it's asking for trouble to throw in a reference to the different sizes of infinity without something of the mathematical background. That was mischievous.

On the subject of alternative theories - I do have one. However it would take hours to write up here. Interestingly it does not make all the other theories wrong - it makes them all right. Which is why I believe it to be the right one, the set of all sets.

I am with Sir Arthur Eddington in believing that it all started with conciousness - and that conciousness was, is, and will be all there ever is. However it takes an understandably long time to explain this and this isn't the place.

Final comment - It is rather annoying to hear an argument between someone trying to explain creation, where it all started, and others talking about evolution, Big Bangs and stuff. Evolution, Big Bang and so on is not concerned with, and has nothing to say about, where it all started. It speaks neither for nor against the idea of an eternal God who created it all. The argument is an illusion.

http://www.h2g2.com/F58051?thread=93178&post=770395 (subsidiary of the new "God" thread) try this link to some interesting god type issues my post as usual wanders outside of the confines of the original discussion thread but which may interest you in the Sir Arthur Eddington way. Kaeori come back it's no fun here without a strong opposition. I think that if word count was considered we would be in the Top 5 Busiest threads.

To whom it may concern:

I can´t believe that I didn´t get flamed for what I said. Usually people just skim something like that and start calling you a racist without having understood what you say.

Okay, when life first originated it wasn´t Evolution. But there was some trial and error involved, which is also part of Evolution. Probably a lot of chemicals were created and all deacyed again. Untill there came a chemical along that was actually able to replicate, perhaps using crystals. And that then lived on and had many babies. Kind of Evolution-like.

I don´t think you should get into a debate about how God was created. There is not really any satisfying answer to how the Universe was created anyway. Either the Universe just popped up, and there was nothing before. Which seems weird, since nothing apparently made it pop up, and saying there was nothing before seems too easy a solution. Or the Universe has always existed, which is just as bad as saying God always existed.

About the eye, perhaps it can not have been created by Evolution. This is not my opinion, but let´s say it is so. But if we take it that it was an almighty being that created eyes, it doesn´t make much sense. For example for what reason is it that we humans have a blind spot in our eyes. That is caused by the nerves going into the eyes, and connecting to the light-sensors. Instead of just having them come in from behind, so we would have no blind spot. Apparently God didn´t think humans needed that luxury, but squids have it. Also there is a species of snake that live somewhere in the tropical regions. If you picked out their eyes, which is sometimes done by birds, you would see no difference in survival between the snakes that had no eyes and those that had their eyes picked out. Apparently those snakes have no need for eyes, their other senses have replaced them. Then just why did God decide to give them eyes in the first place? There are also animals that live in places that are completely dark, yet they have fully functioning, but completely useless eyes. Again, why did God ever get the idea of giving them eyes?

But about the evolution of the eye. There has been done a computer simulation by biologists Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger, trying to see if it is possible for the eye to evolve, and how long it would take. It was showed that from a few light-sensory cells to a fish eye, you only need around half a million years. That it ended up with a fish-eye was not something they had planned on, but was merely the natural reaction to the factors used in the simulation. I think that they ended up having something that exists in nature, shows pretty good that they must be right. You can look up Nature´s Numbers by Ian Stewart for more about it.
If I can refind it, I will also post the rest of the quote by Richard Dawkins you showed. But here is something about Solly Zuckerman I found at talk.origins. It is of course nothing conclusive, but´s it´s late at night so I would prefer if somebody else would look it up for me:
Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.
BTW dinosaurs are talked about in the Bible according to the Creationists. It´s Leviathan and Behemoth.
What Kaeori said was merely that you didn´t know enough about math to come forth with the arguments you did. You´re in high-school, if he´s at a higher level he will know more about maths than you. Though it might have been said in a rather arrogant way, he is right. But I would like to know what Kaeori believes to be wrong with the infinite monkeys idea.

As an American, I must take offense at your comments. Excuse me, we don't have a society? Um, what would you call the East and West Coasts (I too, am a snob...I discount the midwest; not much there but corn and Kansas)?!
And while you may *think* that few of us believe in evolution, let me assure you that it is quite the opposite. Unfortunately, it is a minority that is very vocal. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, I guess. But let me assure you that most Americans DO believe in evolution, and that those who are creationists are few and far between, with the vast majority of them concentrated in...where else? The midwest.

What I meant by few, was simply that the country that is most social-darwinistic, is also the country where least people believe in Evolution. So there doesn´t seem to be a connection there. But here is the Gallup numbers:
"47% of Americans believe that God created human beings at one time within the last 10,000 years pretty much in their present form"
I would also claim that the East and West coast are not societies. My definition is somebody who takes care of their weak. In America you have people dying from hunger and disease in the street. You have children dying of leucemia because they can´t afford treatment. I don´t think it seems like a society.

By that defiintion, I would guess not too many countries have a society. Although I would question your definition, because society as a whole is not a compassionate entity. There are enclaves of *community*, which can and often do provide compassion and caring for the less fortunate members of that community.
I don't know where those Gallup numbers came from, but they frighten me. I wonder if it is yet another example of why a country should not be started by Puritans? And on an off topic note, does anyone know of any other country started by a bunch of folk fleeing religious persecution? Perhaps that would offer some insight into the whole creation vs. evolution argument. It seems the US, while superficially modern, is still stuck in the Cotton Mathers age.

Israel ?

Or is that the 51st state of US ?

Society is a difficult word to define but it does root from Social.
One of the keystones of US Style Democracy is to lower welfare and prevent all that lefty socialist stuff.

The best I could come up with is.

: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another.

Feeing from persercution
you might think that would mean that
they would have a greater aceptance
of differing idears but like the kid
who is bulled then bullys others.
the Americans then persecuted the indians
(native americans what ever).
America was set up as the land of the free
but ended up the land of Dogma and hatered
of the diferent.
Why do the intolerent right
have such power in america I know there are plently
of librals out there are they all hiding of som in?
prehaps we should set up ne thread on America and
why it fears all that lefty socialist stuff.

Montana - you're right in suggesting that Amarican society gets a bad press. But with Hollywood as your priciple PR agency you can't be too surprised. Imagine it if your main understanding of America came from TV and film! Most of the world are in this position! Basically most of us think you're mad. However most of us also acknowledge that going there might change our minds.

Pardon - will return to topic from now.

Somehow I don't think Kaeori will be back. It's a shame -- and I'm not saying that just because I welcomed the moral support (apart from the 1/10).

I'm a bit puzzled about this inevitability of life forming in a chemical soup. I'm still reading up on this subject, but from what I gather no one has ever been able to create a protein from inorganic matter, let alone a cell. I'm reading as fast as I can...

but we have rejected
Creationism (ie Adam and eve etc)
as literaly true ?
yea!

Was it something I said *Missing Kaeori already*

Chemical soup...
I found "Kauffman" & "deDuve" for some references to digest. They may not have created a protein (I don't know) but they understand how the


Have you heard about the Oklo nuclear reactor?
Not many of us would have guessed that nature could build it's own reactor on the surface of this planet. It took us quite a bit of money before we were able to build one. But we did work out the basic mechanics of it around the time of Madam Curie.

You're right Proper Ganda, Kaufman is a good source. The idea will soon seem to be common sense given what we know now about chaos and complexity.

This post has been removed.

Not exactly on topic, but I will explore the drift...

The Old Testament first began to be compiled at the end of the Babylonian Captivity, as a result of a religious revival sponsored in part by Cyrus I of Persia. At that time, the oral traditions were edited together. The oral traditions had had several centuries to evolve and adapt, and so many of the legends from the Old Testament have their roots in Babylon (flood myth, the pit, etc.). Scholars have identified 4 different oral traditions that run side-by-side in the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch (the first five books), which they identify as the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist traditions. As an example, the first chapter of Genesis contains one story of creation that has been identified as typical of the Priestly tradition. Chapter 2 contains a different and incompatible story of creation that has been identified as part of the Elohist tradition.

The New Testament gospels evolved in much the same manner, with three traditions identified through them. First came the Wisdom tradition, which consisted of the sayings of Jesus that everyone instantly identifies with... love thy neighbors, turn the other cheek, etc. This was then overlapped with an Apocalyptic tradition, since apocalypse teachings were so popular in that time. That's where we get all the horrible things Jesus says, like you must hate your mother and father, I come not to bring peace but a sword, etc. It's also where we get the stuff about Jesus bringing the apocalypse before the disciples are dead, something which the theists choose to ignore. Anyway, Wisdom + Apocalypse = Quelle, a German word for "source," more commonly known as Q. This is the source material that the Synoptic gospels, Matt, Mark, and Luke (and the non-canonical gospel of Thomas), all used for the sayings of Jesus. With this material, they created the third tradition, the Narrative. The Narrative tradition sought to humanize Jesus by giving him physical form, with a birth, life, and death story that became the backdrop for his teachings.

And now, with that lecture over, I will get to the point. Because the Bible represents so many different points of view, there is something in it for everyone. If you're an idealistic peacemaker, then the Wisdom sayings of Jesus are all you really need. If you're a bloodthirsty warmonger, there is plenty of material for you in the Yahwist, Deuteronomical, and Apocalyptic traditions to support your campaign. If you try to make a coherent world view out of the whole of the Bible, you're attempting the impossible. So many of the traditions are so wildly incompatible and completely contradictory that any attempt to merge them can lead only to insanity.

This thing seems rather stupid: "The people who actually believe the Bible has something valid to say about society and community ought to be working to wrestle the book from the hands of the intolerant."

If you went by all the Bible says you would also need to be intolerant, because there are places where it tells you to be intolerant.

And Jesus is the ideal way to live in a perfect community. In the real world it´s way too naive. There´s some cool philosophers quote that fits here but I can´t remember it. But you need to be able to be evil in this world, being pure good won´t work.

Ouch, that's a bit mean... Anyway, I've got a thick skin.

I'd take it a bit harder if I'd actually said "those who believe the literal truth of the bible..." that would be stupid.

Why do you need evil in the world? You need the option to be evil, that's called free will, but I am of the opinion that evil is A Bad Thing. Do you think the Bible has nothing valid to say about the ideas of community and society?

The Bible does have some good things to say about society and civilization. So does the epic of Gilgamesh, the Book of Kells, and Plato's Republic. The real question is, why should we value the Bible over any of the others I mentioned? What is it about that particular book that has people so spellbound? As for myself, I can find far greater meaning in the Declaration of Independence, or the works of Mark Twain. I'd rather live up to the ideals in those types of works than in the Bible... there isn't much in the way of negative impact in these. In the Bible, the negative outweighs the positive. And unlike the Bible, the Declaration and A Conneticutt Yankee in King Arthur's Court have a single purpose and consistent message.

Colonel Sellers, dearest...the Book of Kells is an Irish biblical codex...it's most famous pages are the first pages of each of the 5 gospels (the Chi Rho page, from Matthew, is my particular favorite). But I digress...
The reason the Bible is in the hands of the intolerant/ raving folk is that Christians who practice what Jesus preached are more into witnessing by example, rather than beating everyone over the head with it. Sad, but true.
As far as the argument over creation vs. evolution, my little one put it pretty well...if God is God, can't God make a day as long as God wants to? So that would be my question to you. Could Genesis be a highly condensed tale of a billion year evolutionary event?