Richard Leakey says debate over evolution will end soon

[Cerebrum123]

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

Jesus was FULLY man, and FULLY God, and not a demigod.

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

You said that God was invisible, and implied that He has never been seen, and this is not so.

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?

There are a vast amount of reasons to accept the Gospels, and other works in the Bible as historical, but you obviously don't want to go into that.

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.

Magical, and miracles are different things, and even miracles can be brought about by processes that are natural.

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

She was "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit, a member of the Trinity, and not an alien. Also since this was a VIRGIN BIRTH, there was no semen involved, so that description fails on BOTH counts.

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?

No you merely repeated ignorant assertions, and didn't deal with anything I said except for the "demigod" part which is false.

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

I knew you wouldn't accept it as historical, which is why I said i would start with events that happened AFTER Babel, even those who believe in evolution would likely not disagree with me on historicity of events AFTER Babel.

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.

The Bible is MANY books complied into one, and much of what it contains IS historical, and has been proven to be as such.

All I wrote was correct and accurate. Try again.

You have been wrong on every single thing you have described, so maybe YOU should try again?

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.

I saw that you woefully misunderstood the subject matter, and offered to explain those things to you, you have declined my offer, but it still stands if you ever decide you would like to learn about something other than science.

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

Well phank, I have made my view on this pretty clear and if you're just simply going to take the easy way out and call it a 'cherry picked and reinterpreted' view, then it shows me you are a waste of time bothering with since you do not want to take the time to educate yourself in the details and general ideas of each argument. Why is a literal reading of scripture the proper way to take the Bible in the cases dealing with creation? Why are views opposed to a literal modern reading 'cherry picked'?

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?

And why do you believe they have 'reconstructed scriptures'? Because Phank thinks the most literal view is the most correct view? Again, you seem to not want to bother to educate yourself on the details of the TE belief system and thus you end up with crap like this. Rogue, Jim, or myself tend to view Genesis 1 and 2 as not so much a literal word for word belief system, in which God literally created the world in 6 days, but we view it more as a response to the common beliefs of the time in which was a pagan belief system. So the Bible was written with that in mind, so one can no more use it as a scientific text book then one could use the Psalms as one. The Bible was never supposed to be taken in that context. See, the details are far more in depth and far more to the argument then you (or Jorge for that matter) want to let on. In essence, God did not go about to correct scientific errors or misunderstandings, he went about to introduce himself in ways a concepts that the people of that time would understand. They would not understand physics, biology, chemistry, etc, so why should God correct them on these views?

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.

So basically, you insult what you don't understand and assume that those you disagree with are stupid, ignorant, dumb, brainwashed, etc and yet you wonder why I see you in the same light as Jorge? That is how Jorge views those that disagree with him too! Thus you two are cut from the same cloth and just hold dogmaticly different views on those beliefs. AKA two sides of the same coin.

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.

Which is pretty funny, since you take your said beliefs about atheism and use them in the same light, to attack people you disagree with personally. Like I said, you two are cut from the same cloth, no different in method or thought process, just differ on the object of that thought process.

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.

It is the truth; you are Jorge at one in the same. Use the same thought process, the same methods about those whom dare to disagree with you, the same view on those who disagree with you as having some sort of disability, etc.

[rogue06]

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

Impact craters. I've got a couple questions put to me that still need to be answered.

Jorge

FIFY n/c

[rogue06]

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

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

Trying understanding what you seek to criticize first lest you end up looking foolish.

All you are doing is attacking a wildly distorted strawmen here. Then again, if this is your honest understanding of what Christianity is about I don't blame you for being an atheist. If that was accurate I'd probably be an atheist as well. But what you describe is nothing short of a gross mischaracterization.

[phank]

Jesus was FULLY man, and FULLY God, and not a demigod.

Jesus had a god for a father, and a mortal for a mother. This is the definition of a demigod. I provided you a link just in case you felt like reading. But hey, if it's a matter of faith, what good are links?

You said that God was invisible, and implied that He has never been seen, and this is not so.

Nonexistent beings are invisible. Claims that gods are seen are like claims that pink elephants are seen. I, at least, am telling the truth here. You are reciting memorized catechisms into which reality has never penetrated. THERE ARE NO GODS. How simple can this be? What I'm asking you to do, just for the sake of a level playing field, is to set aside your bible as any sort of authoritative source, since clearly we do not share any agreement about that. We must use entirely non-biblical sources for everything we say, if we are to communicate without just parroting.

There are a vast amount of reasons to accept the Gospels, and other works in the Bible as historical, but you obviously don't want to go into that.

What I try to do is compare archeological findings with scriptural accounts. If the bible says Solomon's temple was built in a certain way, with two rows of stone blocks, then a row of wooden planks, then more stone (or whatever), and of archaeologists find an old temple where the bible said it was, built in exactly this way, then clearly this is an historical account and entirely credible. And the evidence is that there WAS a battle at Jericho, and indeed much of the historical material up through at least Judges is pretty accurately recorded.

So my standard of credibility isn't that difficult. If EXTERNAL sources agree, then it's probably true. Claims of psychological states, now, are more difficult but I accept that people sincerely believe preposterous things. WHAT they believe in may be preposterous, but the belief-state itself is pretty definitely the case.

Magical, and miracles are different things, and even miracles can be brought about by processes that are natural.

OK, I'm going to accept that we have a basic terminology problem here. I'm defining magical to BE miraculous, which in turn I define to be something supernatural, without natural cause. If it's brought about by natural processes, then it is NOT a miracle. If it is alleged to have been POOFED by some imaginary agency, then I consider this an assertion of magic. I'm trying to avoid playing word games here. Miracles happen by magic, which is to say by Divine Intervention. (And to be even more clear, I am not talking about stage magic, sleight-of-hind, etc. I'm talking about causeless effects.)

She was "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit, a member of the Trinity, and not an alien.

And is this alleged "holy spirit" native to earth? Clearly not, since it is alleged to have created the earth. Ipso facto it is an alien. Or imaginary, of course, since you are spinning a tall tale here anyway...

Also since this was a VIRGIN BIRTH, there was no semen involved, so that description fails on BOTH counts.

Uh, well, this requires a LOT of decoding. First, if we define a virgin as a woman never experiencing sexual penetration by a male (and whose hyman may be intact, though this is not required), then you may be surprised to discover that pregnant virgins are fairly common. After all, the hyman is not a complete block - it can't be, for menstruation to occur. And because it's not, semen deposited on the labia results in sperm that start a few inches further from the egg, but often make the complete trip. Ask any gynecologist. So you are biologically wrong on that count, but at least that you could look up and find out for yourself.

But I think it's kind of silly to spend much time figuring out how human eggs can become fertilized, since without two human parents of opposite sex, this is simply not possible by any means known at the time. Of course, then as now, it is entirely possible to CLAIM magical fertilization ("I didn't do it, honest, it must have been god!") But who you going to believe, biology or tall tales? Does evidence matter? Does knowledge of biology matter? Hey, does it even matter that being born to a virgin was pretty much SOP for superheroes of the day. But I suppose that doesn't matter either, right?

You perhaps do not appreciate how very very little genetic difference can exist between sperm and egg before hybridization becomes impossible. Inter-fertility between a human woman and an imaginary spirit is something that would make Stan Lee of Marvel Comics blush trying to create a new superhero. Unless, of course, we just invoke MAGIC - one size fits all, need a handy impossible miracle, well, since the only limit is our imagination, we just dream one up. Preposterous? WHO CARES, it's magic, goddidit, anything's possible. Like playing Calvinball.

No you merely repeated ignorant assertions, and didn't deal with anything I said except for the "demigod" part which is false.

And now that we've gone into more detail, you can see that you were WRONG about the demigod (you could have read the link, of course), WRONG about the virgin birth, etc. And the reason you keep being wrong about everything is because you can't set your bible aside and use reality as your yardstick instead. But this is not MY problem.

I knew you wouldn't accept it as historical, which is why I said i would start with events that happened AFTER Babel, even those who believe in evolution would likely not disagree with me on historicity of events AFTER Babel.

Well, virgin births are impossible. You know it, I know it. So drop that claim and stick with biological reality.

The Bible is MANY books complied into one, and much of what it contains IS historical, and has been proven to be as such.

And I agree, some of what's in the bible has been ratified with archaeology. But as you are surely aware, nearly everything in a contemporary novel is quite technically accurate - all of the settings, all of the contextual detail. Often only the protagonists are fictional, and the problems they deal with are pretty standard things people deal with all the time. So there is actually very little fiction in a fictional novel. When the novel is not regarded as holy, it's not hard to extract the little bit of fiction from all the rest. Maybe it's not hard with the bible books either, once you understand that gods are imaginary but faith is not.

You have been wrong on every single thing you have described, so maybe YOU should try again?

No, I have been entirely correct in all I've said. Put your god-colored glasses aside, and look at it more realistically. And read some biology/

I saw that you woefully misunderstood the subject matter,

No, what you saw is that I have an outsider's understanding, which is filtered through knowledge of history, biology, archaeology, mythology, fiction, etc. What's woeful is using a single source, ignoring all reality that conflicts with it, and keeping your head stuck solidly into that sand.

and offered to explain those things to you, you have declined my offer, but it still stands if you ever decide you would like to learn about something other than science.

I know that theology fills many many volumes, and I really don't know where to start. Maybe with Buddhism. But seriously, science is today so vast one must dedicate his entire life to a small detail to make any advances. Far beyond my capabilities all by itself.

[phank]

Trying understanding what you seek to criticize first lest you end up looking foolish.

All you are doing is attacking a wildly distorted strawmen here. Then again, if this is your honest understanding of what Christianity is about I don't blame you for being an atheist. If that was accurate I'd probably be an atheist as well. But what you describe is nothing short of a gross mischaracterization.

Sigh. I provided a source. You have not. A demigod is someone with one human parent and one god parent. Mary was the mother of Christ, God was the father of Christ. Demigod, BY DEFINITION.

(But if Jesus had two human parents, then I have misread your faith quite badly. Perhaps you can explain why someone with a human mother and a god for a father is NOT a demigod?)

ETA: 2000 years ago, it was ONLY possible for a human woman to be interfertile with a human male. Perhaps 35000 years earlier there was some interfertility with Neandertals, but since they went extinct, there is no species remotely close enough to humans to hybridize.

Now, I understand that uneducated shepherds of the day probably didn't understand this. But it's not plausible that YOU don't understand this. So I'm confused. If it wasn't two humans that produce a child, the only alternative is fiction. How do you reconcile this with your own knowledge of biology? I'd really like to know.

[lilpixieofterror]

Jesus had a god for a father, and a mortal for a mother. This is the definition of a demigod. I provided you a link just in case you felt like reading. But hey, if it's a matter of faith, what good are links?

Somebody needs to go and read some Thomas Aquinas about what essence means. Jesus contains the essence of God and the essence of man, so he is fully God and fully human, unlike the demigods of the pagan beliefs in which were half God and half human (as they described them as being) while Christians have described Jesus as being fully God and fully human. Really, you should try to learn something about Christian philosophy before you try to debate on it because you end up sounding like you don't know what you are talking about. Again, just like Jorge, you don’t bother to educate yourself on the finer details of the belief system you are attacking and end up attacking a boat load of strawmen.

[Jorge]

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



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



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.

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

Terror, in the spirit of kindness all I can say to you is that
you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. 'nuff said ...

Jorge

[Tiggy]

Terror, in the spirit of kindness all I can say to you is that
you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. 'nuff said ...

Jorge

Speaking of a who hasn't a clue of what he's talking about....

Why did you run from all those questions about your claims on impact craters?


- T

[lilpixieofterror]

Terror, in the spirit of kindness all I can say to you is that
you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. 'nuff said ...

If that is the case, you two wouldn't agree so much on matters of faith. The only real difference between you two is that you are a Christian and he is an atheist, but your black/white thinking style is the same.

[rogue06]

Sigh. I provided a source. You have not. A demigod is someone with one human parent and one god parent. Mary was the mother of Christ, God was the father of Christ. Demigod, BY DEFINITION.

Several posters have already sought to correct you on this yet you choose to ignore them and continue. In this way you and Jorge are very similar.

To quote Per Ahlberg (closely associated with several recent discoveries concerning early tetrapods), "First understand, then criticize; not the other way round!" That applies to more than just some YECs criticizing science as it can be equally applied to some atheists criticizing Christianity.

[phank]

Several posters have already sought to correct you on this yet you choose to ignore them and continue. In this way you and Jorge are very similar.

To quote Per Ahlberg (closely associated with several recent discoveries concerning early tetrapods), "First understand, then criticize; not the other way round!" That applies to more than just some YECs criticizing science as it can be equally applied to some atheists criticizing Christianity.

OK, maybe it would be better to say I find the "corrections" at best disingenuous, if not downright silly. I'm now told that Jesus wasn't half man and half god, he was ALL man and ALL god, You know, kind of like a cup of all coffee and all cream, all at once. And this is supposed to somehow distinguish between half coffee and half cream? Seriously? Would it satisfy us both to say that Jeses is said to have been a man-god hybrid, and we won't worry about the details since the basic idea is absurd to begin with?

OK, back to the top. A demigod had a mortal mother and a divine father. Check. Demigod. You don't like the term, but it fits precisely.

And just to be sure, I asked you about the biology of it. Just exactly how was Mary supposed to have been fertilized? After all, Jesus was not a clone of Mary. But of course, no biological explanation, only some words about how the holy spirit "overshadowed" Mary. And what was the biological mechanism? Well, rather than get an explanation, I'm just dismissed as ignorant. Good defense - if you can't answer the question, call the questioner names and accuse him of not knowing any better!

So, not getting any help from the doubletalkers (all coffee and all cream at the same time forsooth!), I suggested that maybe this biological process was helped along by magic. Oh no, I'm told, miracles are not magic. They may meet ALL of the requirements for magic just like Jesus meets ALL of the requirements of a demigod, but we don't CALL it magic, and that means it's not magic!

I think these are reasonable questions, given all you and I understand about biology. Jorge sees a reasonable question and runs away hurling insults. Can you do better? So far, the signs are not promising.

[phank]

Somebody needs to go and read some Thomas Aquinas about what essence means. Jesus contains the essence of God and the essence of man, so he is fully God and fully human, unlike the demigods of the pagan beliefs in which were half God and half human (as they described them as being) while Christians have described Jesus as being fully God and fully human. Really, you should try to learn something about Christian philosophy before you try to debate on it because you end up sounding like you don't know what you are talking about. Again, just like Jorge, you don’t bother to educate yourself on the finer details of the belief system you are attacking and end up attacking a boat load of strawmen.

Pixie, with all due respect, this is bafflegab. So a cup of half-and-half contains the ESSENCE of coffee and the ESSENCE of cream, and that makes it ALL coffee and ALL cream, all at once. Right? After all, it DOES contain both essences. So we should order a cup of "all and all" just to be sure we got our essences correct? This is not philosophy, this is simple word games, and these ought to be beneath you. But maybe you can help rogue06 out with the biology? Or do the "finer details of the belief system" disallow biology, since if biology were permitted the detalis would be frankly STUPID?

When you use words, I guess they mean what you wish them to mean, kind of like Humpty Dumpty. We won't SAY "impregnated" because we know better. We'll call it "overshadowed" without defining the term except that it's being used for some unique unstated meaning, and call this a "finer detail". We won't use the term "hybrid" because such a term demands details of the mechanics, so we'll talk about "essences" without saying how such essences can be detected, we'll just ASSERT them, and call this a "finer detail".

Pixie, these are word games. Use normal words with accepted normal meanings, and your entire system of fine details stands naked as preposterous. Which is why words like fertilization, zygotes, hybrid, etc. are avoided. Such words would REVEAL the fine details, and we can't have that, now can we?

[Roy]

Well, virgin births are impossible. You know it, I know it. So drop that claim and stick with biological reality.

Virgin births are possible. If whiptailed lizards can do it, and it happens occasionally among sharks, why should it be impossible in humans?

Roy

[Jorge]

If that is the case, you two wouldn't agree so much on matters of faith. The only real difference between you two is that you are a Christian and he is an atheist, but your black/white thinking style is the same.

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

Will your nonsense never cease?

In certain areas I do indeed have a 'black/white' thinking style because
as a Christian this is mandated. I doubt very much that you know what I'm
talking about, especially given the compromising/capitulating attitude of all TEs.
Uhmmm ... you did notice that I highlighted the words "in certain areas", right?

Believe me, you have far, FAR more in common with Eugenie Scott than I
have now or will ever have with phank. But, as always, you may believe
whatever makes you happy.

Jorge