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

Doc I have two very good dictionaries, both Merriam-Webster and OED. Can't find my OED, but M-W states thus

Main Entry: bate
Pronunciation: 'bAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bat·ed; bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, short for abaten to abate
transitive senses
1 : to reduce the force or intensity of : RESTRAIN
2 : to take away : DEDUCT
3 archaic : to lower especially in amount or estimation
4 archaic : BLUNT


And as M-W and the OED are considered the definitive guides to the english language it would seem my definition is superior to yours, yours being a later corrupted usage.

Dr J, see the post I left on your PS. It sums it up nicely. See, instead of responding to the points - about the hypothetical single celled organism, etc. - you would rather call me an imbecile. That makes you an ass.

For pity's sake, Doc, what piece of this explanation went over your head last time?

Your story about Darwin goes like this:

<"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin<
>>

Conclusion: Darwin had doubts.
_____________________________________________________________________

The REAL story about Darwin goes like this (with the bit you left out in CAPS):

From The Origin of Species, Chapter VI
<>

Conclusion: Darwin had no doubts.
_____________________________________________________________________


Isn't it astonishing how easy it is to misrepresent someone?

Just (a) ignore what they actually said, what they actually meant, what the message is, (b) decide what you actually want them to say (c) find a statement starting with "If" (d) Quote from said statement up to - but not including - the "BUT".

Here's another example:

Some people think that DocJ is a complete and utter fibber. BUT he is actually not.

Easy. No?

I have already pointed this out to you. You have already argued with it.

What reading age is involved here?

The wean.

<>

And of course, there's a huge difference between demonstrating that something is not possible, and not currently knowing how it happened.

Is the Intelligent designer so much simpler than its creations that the argument doesn't apply to it?

Noggin

Dr J, I don't understand how it is possible that you say you are an athiest, yet you believe in this theory. If you don't believe in god, who do you think the intelligent designer is?

<>

<<"I am an atheist and have cast my vote for intelligent design">>

Well, make up your b****y mind . Are you playing 's advocate, or do you really buy into ID.

Either way, to be effective, you need to address what other people are saying.

Noggin

Exactly. Darwin didn't have the equipment that would allow him to see what's inside a cell, he COULDN'T know how complex a structure it is. He saw similarities with simple structures such as air bladders and the vastly more complex structure of the lung, and assumed an evolutionary connection. Asumptions such as these are considered irrefutable fact by many-this is incorrect. Darwin certainly had a great imagination, a flair for writing it in scientific prose, and a huge set of gonads for getting it printed.



Obviously, otherwise he never would have pushed for publication -or- he did so foolishly to conceal his doubts. He also had no training or knowledge or equipment required for further investigation. To borrow from a previous example, he never opened the hood of the car-he couldn't- so he merely made assumptions about the possible origins of the contents. Go here to see how Behe treats Darwin and the eye http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm




Me. I designed the whole universe. I'm, in Earth years, five hundred and seventy six thousand million billion years old, but among my peers I'm what you might call a teenager. Slartibartfast is one of my artists at the Magrathea plant, he did Norway. He likes carving those fjords. Sorry about the short lifespan here, but humans have a penchant for truculence that increases exponentially with age until the body starts to decay. Can you imagine people like Kahn or Hitler living for five hundred or a thousand years? Think what JTB would be like at just 200!

Seriously 666 you've missed a few posts where I pointed out that I do not buy into the ID theory. I'm just taking that side for the purposes of furthering what I hoped would be an educational debate or discussion. It's turned out to be more like a kindergarten.

It's interesting to note that since the self-proclaimed Christian Michael Behe, who pushes ID yet believes in God, got his book [darwin's black box] published there's been a huge amount of discussion on evolutionary theories all over the world. FYI in this book the author pushes the idea that some organs or processes -which we accept as normal, such as the eye- are so complex that they could not have possibly evolved. That like a pocketwatch there's so much going on at once, so many highly specific reactions, that it could only have been designed. He resurrected a term, 'irreducibly complex', and made it popular. Or nefarious, it depends on you point of view. Before this book was published there was scant resarch being done and very very few papers written yet since then there have been hundreds [that I've read] if not thousands. There have also been discoveries, one of which has trashed Behe's example of a particular bacterial falgellum as being irreducibly complex, Behe's flagellum has, if I recall, four structures that enable motion and there have been discovered variations that have three, two and one. William Dembski is another well educated individual pushing the ID theory. If you go here http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p79.htm you can see an excerpt from his blog on how he classifies 'Darwinists'.

Evolution is a nice idea, and it has achieved some level of acceptance as fact, however it is still a theory and there are still huge gaps in developmental chains-such as how a light sensitive spot appearing first as a mutation in or on a single celled organism has become an eye. Most people negate the necessary development of the surrounding creature that is required to make use of an eye and this eases their way into making assumptions on how it could have evolved. Without this simultaneous development of the surrounding creature, in the form of a nervous system and a brain, a functional eye that we have today would be a fairly useless appendage.

People are stating that it's not the responsibility of science to prove evolution is the absolute irrefutable truth-well then what makes them think we'll believe them? Just because they say so is not good enough for me. This shirking of responsibility has opened the door for the general populace to explore other options of which intelligent design is one. There's a less popular theory of unintelligent design also, but it implies that God was stupid and that does not go over well at parties.

Dr J, I've attempted to enlighten you as to how the eye developped, but you just keep ignoring it. Do you think if you ignore it long enough it will go away? You can't claim that we can't explain the eye development just b/c you refuse to even read or discuss the explanations.

Also, why not respond to Noggin's question. If you're the intelligent designer, who designed you? Or did you evolve?

'how a light sensitive spot appearing first as a mutation in or on a single celled organism has become an eye.'

Who ever, anywhere on this whole green earth at any time made the suggestion that any eye began its evolution as a spot on a single-celled organism?

Just curious. Sounds to me like someone is blowing wind. Or maybe they were a little sidetracked when they were reading hundreds of papers.



This conversation is actually really, really boring, I find. But then, I can't quite understand how anybody can possibly have such an utter lack of imagination and sensitivity to the world around them to ever give up on life and say that something is 'irreducably complex'. I find it unutterably sad.

I know next to nothing of the science of evolution, so I've stayed out of this conversation, mostly. But it does seem to me that the eye would only have evolved when the organism needed it. Of course there is no reason to think that a low level organism would need an eye.

"Just what is that supposed to mean?"

It's the sort of car driven by people who are worried their penis is too small. Still, size isn't everything, so don't worry too much sam.

"What sort of car do you drive?"

One that is adequate to the needs of myself and my family. How about you?

Click here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/radio4/ape_got_lucky.ram
for a light hearted look(listen) at human evolution. You will need Real Player.

Just to stir the pot:

'Harvard University is planning a scientific study of how life emerged on Earth.'

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/34A86683-8016-422C-BD24-8254154833D8.htm

(Are Christians allowed to read Al Jazeera?)

<>

Best, for their own good, to tell them that they're not.

The more they are kept in the dark, the more they flourish, apparently. Every one a fun guy.

The wean.

"Are Christians allowed to read Al Jazeera?"

Why ever not? I do...

(BTW, I am sure you know, many thousands of Christians are evolutionists, and many thousands of evolutionists are Christians.)

On the off-chance that you'll ever come back to H2G2, Sammie, I'd like to ask you something. Given that you (presumably) believe that god is all-powerful, ie that he has perfect knowledge of all that was, is and will be; then he must know what we will choose to do. We can't choose not to do it, because that would mean that god was wrong. That means that not only do we not have free will, but athiests are literally forced to not believe in him. He'll then send us to hell for doing what he already knew we would do (and won't let us change)

Can you see the paradox there, Sam? Either god is all powerful and deliberately gives us life so that we will die and go to hell (ie he's an evil bastard), or he is not all-powerful.

Or, as is more logical to me, he doesn't exist and you are using this belief, not to give yourself inner peace and happiness and try to make the world a better place like most Christians, but as a 'justifiable' (to other idiots like you) reason to hate people who aren't like you.

Let me know what you think. Or not.

'We can't choose not to do it, because that would mean that god was wrong.'

Not true. You do have free will and you can choose to do right or wrong. However, because of the Fall, you cannot turn to God unless God calls you out of sin.

All people deserve Hell because all people sin voluntarily. However, God has chosen some people (based on His own Divine Will) to be pulled out of sin.

And you say this is 'Good News'!

If he was a 'good' deity, then why doesn't he save everyone? Surely he's able to, or he's not all-powerful.

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Romans 14-21

The Good News is Jesus died for you to get into Heaven. All you have to do is repent and be born-again. Ignore the theology and repent. It is the only way to Heaven.