Richard Leakey says debate over evolution will end soon

[Tiggy]

Anybody else find it really funny and sad, all at once, how extreme fundy atheist sound so much like extreme fundy Christians?

Exactly. Phank and Jorge are the twins separated at birth.

- T

[lilpixieofterror]

Exactly. Phank and Jorge are the twins separated at birth.

- T

That is because extremist of all stripes, rather they be Christians, atheist, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc are cut from the same cloth and often resort to attacking the most extreme belief of those they disagree with and acting as though other ways to view beliefs they disagree with are wrong or at the very least, "Not a rep for the 'true believers'". IE how both Jorge and Phank want to paint Christians that are not YEC as not being 'true Christians' because it would dispel their myths.

[phank]

That is because extremist of all stripes, rather they be Christians, atheist, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc are cut from the same cloth and often resort to attacking the most extreme belief of those they disagree with and acting as though other ways to view beliefs they disagree with are wrong or at the very least, "Not a rep for the 'true believers'". IE how both Jorge and Phank want to paint Christians that are not YEC as not being 'true Christians' because it would dispel their myths.

I'm not sure I understand this comment. I can only guess what a "true Christian" might be. While I think it's the case that anyone who can believe in gods can believe anything, I still recognize that no two believers in anything are alike.

I understand also that I stepped on Tiggy's toes a while back, and the way he bears a grudge is to misrepresent anything I write that he can. In this way, Tiggy and Jorge are alike. Also, responses by insult and mocking are a common bond those two share. But of course, they wouldn't choose to recognize this.

At any rate, my idea of a "true Christian" is someone who has "accepted Jesus as their savior", even though I'll never know quite what that means.

(And anyway, getting our jollies by attacking posters personally, rather than responding to their posts, gets old fast for most people. YMMV)

[Cerebrum123]

I'll never know quite what that means.

I personally, I hope that that statement isn't true.

[phank]

I personally, I hope that that statement isn't true.

Well, I was not raised in the Christian tradition, or in a Christian household. My first exposure to religion that I can remember was an early presentation (grade school) of the various religions around the world, and I must say the Christian faith (with invisible gods, demigods from alien insemination, miracles always happening offstage, magical floods, etc. etc. etc.) always struck me as one of the more bizarre. What little I've read of Buddhism makes it sound almost reasonable, although of course I wasn't raised in that tradition either.

So I try to understand the world around me on its own terms, pay attention to what researchers discover, try to appreciate at least in general terms the various scientific theories and how they all fit so neatly together at the borders. I guess it's a religious sort of belief that there is no magic, but I guess what makes me an "extremist" is that I don't buy into part-time, or off-stage, or "hearing voices" sorts of magic. The "non-extremists" seem to be those who understand reality much the way I do, but then smear a superfluous layer of superstition over the top. And I can't help but regard this as a vestigial remnant of well-meaning parents, now carefully compartmentalized where it can't contaminate reality more than absolutely necessary.

[Tiggy]

I understand also that I stepped on Tiggy's toes a while back, and the way he bears a grudge is to misrepresent anything I write that he can. In this way, Tiggy and Jorge are alike. Also, responses by insult and mocking are a common bond those two share. But of course, they wouldn't choose to recognize this.

LOL! It's pretty funny how phank constructs these alternate realities to protect his fragile ego.

Phank, do you think I'm the only one who notices that your over-the-top rants against all religion is a close parallel to Fundy rants for religion? I'm not even in the top ten.

Sure, I give Creationists both barrels when they misrepresent science, but I don't go attacking everything about their religious beliefs like you do. I've had to bite my tongue while you dis some of the nicest, most polite Christian posters here with your nuke-first-understand-later tactics. Frankly you're an embarrassment to the pro-science side.

- T

[Jorge]

That is because extremist of all stripes, rather they be Christians, atheist, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc are cut from the same cloth and often resort to attacking the most extreme belief of those they disagree with and acting as though other ways to view beliefs they disagree with are wrong or at the very least, "Not a rep for the 'true believers'". IE how both Jorge and Phank want to paint Christians that are not YEC as not being 'true Christians' because it would dispel their myths.

************************************************************

Putting me in the same category as Phank ... OUCH!!! -- that's hitting below the belt!

But I guess I deserve that. I mean, I once put you in the same category as
Eugenie Scott, asking if you two were going to ride your broomsticks together.

So, did you ever broom-fly to that rendezvous with the ol' witch?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Exactly. Phank and Jorge are the twins separated at birth.

- T

******************************************************************

Spotted mushrooms, Tiggy ... you must stay away from the spotted variety of mushrooms.

Jorge

[Cerebrum123]

with invisible gods, demigods from alien insemination, miracles always happening offstage, magical floods, etc. etc. etc.)

That doesn't accurately portray Christian belief or teaching at all. Jesus wasn't a "demigod", God did show Himself to Adam and Eve, many miracles were seen and documented by eyewitness accounts, and nothing about the flood being "magical", and no "artificial insemination by aliens". Do you actually even know what Christians actually teach and believe? If you would like I could at least give you what would most likely considered accurate accounts of events after Babel(that seems to be the cutoff point for historical accuracy in the Bible). You seem upset that Jorge misrepresents "science", but you don't even have some of the basics about Christianity right, and that's not a good thing. Would you like perhaps to discuss these issues on a different thread, in a different forum(these topics aren't exactly Nat. Sci. material)?

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm not sure I understand this comment. I can only guess what a "true Christian" might be. While I think it's the case that anyone who can believe in gods can believe anything, I still recognize that no two believers in anything are alike.

And yet you view Jorge's view of Christianity and of God to be the most consistant view out there...

I understand also that I stepped on Tiggy's toes a while back, and the way he bears a grudge is to misrepresent anything I write that he can. In this way, Tiggy and Jorge are alike. Also, responses by insult and mocking are a common bond those two share. But of course, they wouldn't choose to recognize this.

Nah, I don't think Tiggy and Jorge are anything alike. You and Jorge though, are far more alike.

At any rate, my idea of a "true Christian" is someone who has "accepted Jesus as their savior", even though I'll never know quite what that means.

And yet you have said that Jorge's view of creation is the 'best way' to view Christianity with...

(And anyway, getting our jollies by attacking posters personally, rather than responding to their posts, gets old fast for most people. YMMV)

If you had anything of substance that wasn't just the same old nonsense I hear time and time again, I might take the time to respond to your post. There is only so much rants, assertions, and taunts one can take until it becomes pointless to bother with anymore.

[Tiggy]

Spotted mushrooms, Tiggy ... you must stay away from the spotted variety of mushrooms.

Jorge

You have a lot of questions on your impact crater claims waiting for you over on the Macro-Evolution thread

When may we expect your answers?

- T

[lilpixieofterror]

Putting me in the same category as Phank ... OUCH!!! -- that's hitting below the belt!

Why not? You two both agree with one another about the 'proper way' to interpret scripture is in the YEC context.

But I guess I deserve that. I mean, I once put you in the same category as
Eugenie Scott, asking if you two were going to ride your broomsticks together.

Considering that we only agree with one another in terms of YECism, that is rather amusing.

So, did you ever broom-fly to that rendezvous with the ol' witch?

I don't agree with her on all details while you a phank, agree with one another on almost everything, expect what your peculiar religious beliefs are.

[phank]

LOL! It's pretty funny how phank constructs these alternate realities to protect his fragile ego.

Projecting again, I see.

Phank, do you think I'm the only one who notices that your over-the-top rants against all religion is a close parallel to Fundy rants for religion? I'm not even in the top ten.

Yes, I know. If you look at my profile, you see that I claim to be an atheist. I notice you claim to be, well, by golly, you're not saying. I also admit to being a liberal. You admit to..well, by golly, NOTHING. How very upfront and honest of you. Hide your orientation and snipe from the sidelines.

Sure, I give Creationists both barrels when they misrepresent science, but I don't go attacking everything about their religious beliefs like you do. I've had to bite my tongue while you dis some of the nicest, most polite Christian posters here with your nuke-first-understand-later tactics. Frankly you're an embarrassment to the pro-science side.

- T

Because I don't let magic in even through the side door? I don't dis any nice polite people except insofar as they take for granted what I regard as imaginary.

[phank]

That doesn't accurately portray Christian belief or teaching at all. Jesus wasn't a "demigod",

Jesus is EXACTLY a demigod. The very definition could have been written for him.

God did show Himself to Adam and Eve,

And in Aesop's fables, mice held conventions and gave speeches. So what?

many miracles were seen and documented by eyewitness accounts,

Sure, PROVIDED you accept as Historical Truth every tale written in the distant past by a superstitious people. And you wonder why I find your religion bizarre?

and nothing about the flood being "magical",

Excuse me? EVERYTHING about the flood was magical. There is not one single detail of that fable, however small, that does not require a miracle. There is not one physical obsertation consistent with such a flood UNLESS it was magical. Please.

and no "artificial insemination by aliens".

And Mary was impregnated by WHAT, if not an alien? Certainly not by a human being.

Do you actually even know what Christians actually teach and believe?

From what you write, it's clear that YOU don't know. I described things from the perspective of a sane outsider. You turned out to be unable to even recognize the truth through religious eyes. And people wonder why I find religion so reprehensible?

If you would like I could at least give you what would most likely considered accurate accounts of events after Babel(that seems to be the cutoff point for historical accuracy in the Bible).

Babel is another fictional account, a fable told to teach a moral lesson. It is not historical.

Your problem is, your entire faith seems based on a single book. Which you were trained to believe is true, because the book SAYS it's true and so do your religious peers. At least people like Jim understand the bible in some sort of historical and psychological context. Much as it irritates Tiggy, I respect their efforts to reconcile fables with history. I think it can be done. No gods required.

You seem upset that Jorge misrepresents "science", but you don't even have some of the basics about Christianity right,

All I wrote was correct and accurate. Try again.

and that's not a good thing. Would you like perhaps to discuss these issues on a different thread, in a different forum(these topics aren't exactly Nat. Sci. material)?

I'm active only in this forum because I'm interested in natural science, and have little or no patience with imaginary gods or reified metaphors or brainwashed beliefs. You can go pray at the gods of your choice elsewhere, but here they should be checked at the door, lest they contaminate natural science discussions.

[phank]

And yet you view Jorge's view of Christianity and of God to be the most consistant view out there...

Jorge's view is not internally consistent, but he works hard to make his view as compatible as he can with a literal reading of his scripture. In this way, his religion strikes me as less of a cafeteria plan, where you get to cherry-pick and reinterpret and re-position biblical passages according to some external model.

Look, this is where Jim (for example) or rogue06 and I tend to differ. These people are intelligent, well-informed, and interesting. But in the process, they have reconstructed scriptures to the point where they mean whatever the latest scientific discovery says. If I had a book full of dubious tales, but I got to reinterpret those tales so as to fit a model developed thousands of years later, why bother with the tales in the first place? Why not just accept the more accurate models?

Nah, I don't think Tiggy and Jorge are anything alike. You and Jorge though, are far more alike.

In some ways, I suppose this is true. I INSIST on reality, as well as we can understand it. That reality simply HAS NO GODS, except in the imagination. And I guess because I'm willing to insist on reality, I'm going to irritate those who insist on nonsense. I suppose I could change persona here, and be (like Tiggy) passively tolerant of the superstitions and the imaginary gods and the various religous claptrap, and focus on the science. You know, just kind of tune that stuff out, and silently regard it all as one might a birth defect - you can't help but notice, but you've been trained not to stare.

And yet you have said that Jorge's view of creation is the 'best way' to view Christianity with...

OK, I'm not sure how to respond here. Jorge takes his fables as literal natural history, and since doing so places him in direct conflict with everything that is known about everything, he has little choice but to nibble around the edges of fact while attacking everyone personally. This isn't the "best way to view Christianity with", but I think it's a more honest effort to address the bible on its own terms, rather than (as I said others do) figure out reality independently, and then find a way to force-fit the bible to it.

If you had anything of substance that wasn't just the same old nonsense I hear time and time again, I might take the time to respond to your post. There is only so much rants, assertions, and taunts one can take until it becomes pointless to bother with anymore.

This is actually an interesting perception. Except for these little off-topic discussions, I think most of what I contribute here concerns natural science. This thread is supposed to be about Leakey. And Leakey's prediction is that the evidence supporting evolution is becoming incontrovertible. My response to that is, the evidence has been incontrovertible for a century, although Leakey is right that it becomes moreso every day. Rejection of evolution is not based on evidence.