My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

[_The Dude]

Or ignoring it could be a mechanism of reducing cognitive dissonance.

I don't think you could actually support this notion from cognitive dissonance theory. In fact, it seems to be quite a problematic idea, since with this model of understanding, everything would be cognitive dissonance, and most of these issues where we are currently experiencing cognitive dissonance, we are simply ignoring them (as a coping mechanism) to the point that we are simply unaware that every single cognition we experience is causing dissonance that we are (for the most part) merely ignoring.

But since I don't assume that we all live in wonderland, I think that your answer is pretty unlikely.

I think cognitive dissonance theory is BS. Sorry, I should have been up front about that. The title of this tread could just as easily be "My favorite meme of the Mormons" for all the seriousness I attribute to the label.

Cog dis is BS, but it's a different kind of BS from Mormon beliefs like "no blood before the Fall" (to use an example from this thread).

[_JohnStuartMill]

JSM:

Why should there be one test? There'd be many different ones. Following The Dude's and my examples, you could test eyesight and ejaculate volume in highly visual species that reproduce internally.

Until one of you can demonstrate that an individual developed a trait that was conducive to reproductive success, and that said individual was successful in passing that trait to its offspring, and that those offspring then likewise successfully passed that same trait to their offspring—and in the process made the trait predominant in the species from that point forward (until, of course, modified or replaced by subsequent adaptation) then you are left with the hard, cold reality that “fitness” means nothing if it cannot reproduce itself.

Let me explain this so simply that even you can understand it, Will.

The "tests" for fitness have already been shown to correlate with increased reproduction, and reproduction of descendants, etc. Remember The Dude's example of using ejaculate volume as a predictor of reproductive success? There's an overwhelming amount of empirical data showing with a high degree of confidence that ejaculate volume predicts reproductive success. Using inductive logic, we can reason that an individual adolescent eagle -- for which we don't know any actual reproductive outcomes yet -- that produces a high volume of ejaculate is likely to be more reproductively successful than an eagle that produces a relatively low volume. "Fitness" is a forward-looking probability of future events, which is calculated when the actual reproductive success of the individuals at hand is still in question, while reproductive success is a backward-looking outcome, and is calculated after the data for the individuals at hand is already in.

the traits of those who reproduce best become predominant in the species; the species does not come to reflect the traits of those who are naturally the “fittest.”

You're applying an ex post standard to an ex ante measurement ("fitness"), which is incorrect. If I told you that you that you were likely to roll higher than a two on your next Monopoly roll, and you end up rolling snake eyes, you'd be wrong to tell me that my initial odds must have been wrong. But that's precisely the kind of mistake you're making here, Will.

And therefore “fitness” must necessarily equate to nothing more than reproductive success

No. You fail biology, Will.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, BC's nonsense is not going to be helpful. While he believes that he makes sense and has a theory that can blend scripture with reality, he is only kidding himself. It is craziness and really just demonstrates how far the human mind can go to try to make sense of the nonsensical.

I am happy you and Sethbag are so soelf assured even though you both seem a bit smug about it. Life must be grand when one is able to cut through it all and have all the answers.

Look, I know the A&E story to be viewed as literal is problematic. For me though, I would like to figure out how it may work, even if figurative, in understanding human kind's relationship with what I believe in and that is a God. There is much in the world that at least for now I cannot answer accept through a faith in some higher power. Evolution may be true. But for it to start all on its own by mere chance, for this world to just come into existence all on its own, and work so incredibly wondrously as far as all the parts of it working seems to require a higher leap of faith at least for me than believing it was all just a cosmic accident.

[The Stig]

beastlie:

by the way, anyone else noticing that Will seems to be abandoning his tautology argument?

That you think I have done this only underscores the fact that you never understood the argument in the first place. Not surprising, of course, when it comes to you. You are always so deeply immersed in contemplation of your next comment that you seldom, if ever, actually listen to anyone with whom you are conversing.

Little Dude:

(Lists 4 bullet points allegedly supporting his argument that “natural selection” is not logically absurd.)

Schryver:

(In response to the 3rd and 4th points.) If, indeed, a variation can be directly related to survival, the odds of reproducing are increased. However, it then becomes essential to pass on that particular variation. As you well know, variations in an individual may enhance that individual’s survivability, but there is no guarantee that the variation will be passed on in the reproductive process. It might be, but favorable mutations have no distinct advantage over unfavorable ones when it comes to the next generation. So, again, let’s take a specific example—what you feel is a typical example—and explore it a little further, shall we? Let’s see if you can establish a chain of “selected” traits over many generations of a species.

Little Dude asserts:

Over repeated cycles, the natural environment selects for heritable traits that confer survival and reproductive advantages, causing evolution of the population.

To which Schryver replies:

I don’t believe you can demonstrate, with evidence, that traits conferring advantages related to survival and reproduction are necessarily (and naturally) favored in any appreciable fashion.

But here’s your real problem, as I see it. It is not sufficient to demonstrate how the teeth of a population of beavers, over the course of several generations, will adapt themselves to the peculiar challenges of a new, and dominant, type of tree in their forest.You have to demonstrate how the mechanism you describe, which is actually a very conservative model of evolution (and one with which I really have no problem at all) can be used to explain the variety of species currently on the planet.

That is where I am convinced your conception of “evolution” breaks down. You cannot demonstrate how, absent deliberate, intelligent direction, a giraffe and a butterfly can trace their lineage back to the primordial ooze. What Darwinist ideologues try to do is say that billions and billions and years were required to produce the variety we now see. I respond by saying that there is no evidence to substantiate either the immense scope of time they assert, or the unbelievably numerous and diverse transitional forms that must have necessarily been passed through along the way.

Little Dude:

YES!!! I win the match. That wasn't so hard.

The Little Dude feigns to not understand that the obvious purport of my entire reference to and arguments in support of the tautological nature of so-called “natural selection” is that “natural selection” cannot explain the variety of species on the planet! The argument has no other valid application except on this one point. And, of course, the entire development of my argument on this thread was deliberately designed to lead to this question.

Darwinists would have us believe that “natural selection” (i.e. selection that occurs through purely “natural” processes, absent any external, intelligent direction) can explain the variety of speciation we now see. The Little Dude (and his assorted circle jerk minions participating on this thread) would have us believe that simple adaptation within limited parameters—adaptation that I accept precisely because it can be and has been observed, or because there is sufficiently definitive fossil evidence for it—is unjustifiably (and illogically) extrapolated to explain the diverse speciation on the planet. It is on this point that I call BS. There is quite simply no evidence for this. And, of course, this has been the ongoing problem for the past century and a half since Origin of the Species was first published. Initially, Darwin and his acolytes predicted that the fossil record would bear out the evidence of the transitional process so predicted. But it hasn’t! And so now we have been subjected to the various “predictions” or so-called “logical extrapolations” from the genetic relationships of all life forms. Lacking evidence of the transitional process, we are now assured that such evidence can be found within the genetic encoding of extant species. But, of course, everything must be inferred, and at no point can any external, intelligent influence be postulated. It all has to happen through beneficial genetic mutations over the course of huge amounts of time.

This results in other problems for the Darwinists, however. These problems, ironically enough, are highlighted in the article linked to by Doctor CamNC4Me here. The problem? Well, the fact that the fossil record seems to indicate that there have frequently been huge evolutionary “leaps”. These leaps defy the standard explanation of a slow, gradual process occurring over almost-incomprehensible eons of time.

(Incidentally, although Doctor CamNC4Me apparently believes that this article is some kind of sledge-hammer of confirmation for evolutionary theory, I found it almost laughable! It is almost 100% speculative extrapolation of the observation of bacteria mutations; mutations that, even if they turned out to be dominant in subsequent reproduction (which the study does not demonstrate), don’t even come close to explaining the evolutionary leaps manifest in the fossil record.) But articles like this have become the staple of the Darwinists. I hear them touted all the time; I read them; I remain singularly unimpressed. It’s nothing but one person after another waxing eloquent over the emperor’s beautiful suit.

The fact is that Darwinist ideologues are utterly dependent on the whole group being in constant agreement that there is no other possible answer to the questions of the bio-history of the planet (that is, any answer that doesn’t include or even hint at some higher intelligence being involved in the process). Having categorically rejected any possibility of intelligent design and direction when it comes to life on this planet, and yet lacking so many explanations for the evidence that defies the accepted model, the Darwinist god of the gaps must necessarily be the most amazing deity every conceived by the mind of man.

The Little Dude is, of course, part of this ideological “establishment.” He is presumably more cognizant of the “gaps,” but his faith in the answer is sufficient to get him past the problems he must surely notice from time to time. People like Sethbag and beastlie and the others who have chimed in on this thread are certain that the explanation is iron-clad, not because they really understand it all, but because they have unbounded confidence in the “consensus” beliefs of the high priests of the church of Darwin. They are like Mormons who never really had a personal conviction based in direct revelation from God, but they were inclined to rest their hopes and faith in the confidence that the prophet and apostles, or perhaps even an admired and respected stake president, knew it was true. Not much has changed for them. They’ve just transferred their faith reliance to a different set of people in whom they trust.

As for The Little Dude and his continued evasion of the import of my arguments … well, I’m not hardly surprised. I expected nothing else. It’s a simple matter to dismiss non-believers in Darwinist dogma as laughable ignoramuses. The Church of Darwin has evolved into a veritable juggernaut in the 21st century. It has effectively crushed all opposition, and no longer even has to subject itself to anything approaching a true “debate” over its tenets. Anyone even hinting at not being persuaded by the evidence that supposedly “proves” its doctrines is instantly branded an idiot heretic, by acclamation. No further examination is required. No questions permitted. No doubts allowed. And despite its utterly impregnable position as an unrivaled power on its throne, it will tolerate no dissension whatsoever. It characterizes all heretics as possible dangers to society who must be utterly silenced if not entirely eradicated from the body politic.

And yet I will continue to affirm, without shame, and with a high-degree of intellectual confidence, that I remain unconvinced. I am not ignorant of their arguments. Just unconvinced. Indeed, I am contrarily convinced. Everything I have learned about this planet upon which we live, and the various life forms that currently populate it, confirms my conviction that it all originates in patterns and designs that predate both this planet and its accompanying system. I am confident that life elsewhere in the galaxy (and beyond) will conform, more or less, to the patterns we see here.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I think that Gadianton Plumber ought to do a little reading on what Cognitive Dissonance is. The fact that (as he puts it in the OP), "So, my apologist brethren, my apostate people, or bored folks, is this ignored for a reason?", the fact that it is ignored suggests that there isn't any significant amounts of cognitive dissonance caused by the issue which he raises.

Ben M.

Maybe I misused the term, it wouldn't be the first time. So is this an issue with you at all?

[_beastie]

That you think I have done this only underscores the fact that you never understood the argument in the first place. Not surprising, of course, when it comes to you. You are always so deeply immersed in contemplation of your next comment that you seldom, if ever, actually listen to anyone with whom you are conversing.

I see. So shifting your argument from this:

A.

No, let's see you describe "natural selection" such that it becomes something more than "those who reproduce best are selected."

to this:
B.

Now your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstate how “natural selection” is able to produce such results absent the influence of external factors—through random mutations or whatnot.

did not actually indicate an abandonment of argument A. You’re just throwing in argument B for good measure.

If I were you, I wouldn’t be proud of the fact that you haven’t abandoned your tautology argument. It’s been painstakingly demonstrated by numerous posters why your argument is invalid, yet, apparently, you remain blissfully unaware of that fact. That doesn’t speak highly to your own ability to attend to what others say.

Now, of course, you claim that the sole purpose of the tautology argument was to demonstrate that:

The Little Dude feigns to not understand that the obvious purport of my entire reference to and arguments in support of the tautological nature of so-called “natural selection” is that “natural selection” cannot explain the variety of species on the planet! The argument has no other valid application except on this one point. And, of course, the entire development of my argument on this thread was deliberately designed to lead to this question.

Really. So you didn’t bring up the tautology argument in order to demonstrate – let me make a wild guess – that natural selection is logically invalid?

Comments from a poster who apparently stole Will’s account and posted in his name:

I don't disagree with you at all, as a matter of fact. I only made the argument back 2006 in response to someone's comments concerning the notion of "survival of the fittest." Of course, Huxley was fond of the expression, and for many decades it did represent a popular "summation of the theory of evolution." Of course, it's since been largely abandoned by Darwinist ideologues. Why? Well, because it IS clearly a tautology. That is my only point. Period. "Survival of the fittest" has no real meaning whatsoever. Those species who "survive" are those who reproduce most successfully. Like Muslims in Europe.

That is my only point!!! PERIOD!!!

Will, it’s true that there is someone on this thread who isn’t paying attention to your comments. Sadly, that person is you.

here is quite simply no evidence for this. And, of course, this has been the ongoing problem for the past century and a half since Origin of the Species was first published. Initially, Darwin and his acolytes predicted that the fossil record would bear out the evidence of the transitional process so predicted. But it hasn’t!

Well, now your reading list becomes even more pertinent to the conversation. What texts have you read on the subject that enables you to declare that the fossil record hasn’t born out evidence of the transitional process?


(ps, once again I have to note my enjoyment in seeing yet another believer try to belittle science by trying to turn it into a religion. Hee hee)

[_JohnStuartMill]

Schryver:

(In response to the 3rd and 4th points.) If, indeed, a variation can be directly related to survival, the odds of reproducing are increased. However, it then becomes essential to pass on that particular variation. As you well know, variations in an individual may enhance that individual’s survivability, but there is no guarantee that the variation will be passed on in the reproductive process. It might be, but favorable mutations have no distinct advantage over unfavorable ones when it comes to the next generation. So, again, let’s take a specific example—what you feel is a typical example—and explore it a little further, shall we? Let’s see if you can establish a chain of “selected” traits over many generations of a species.

Hey, thanks for pointing out your stupidity so I didn't have to go look for it.

Yes, favorable mutations are no more likely to be passed on to one's offspring than unfavorable ones. However, they ARE a hell of a lot more likely to be passed on to the generation after that. Let's run a thought experiment here: pretend that a DNA replication error when you were in the womb caused you to have an 10-inch penis instead of the 2-incher you have right now. Let's also say that you have eight sons (hey, you're Mormon, right?) and that you're just as likely to pass either trait (long or short) along to them. So, odds are that you'd pass the 10-inch gene along to four of your sons, while the other four get the (short) shaft and retain your non-mutated 2-inch gene. So, in your sons' gene pool, both the long and short genes are equally represented. So far, we're in line with what you've said, but it's the next generation that's more interesting. Assume that having a 10-inch penis really is reproductively beneficial (for whatever reason, it doesn't really matter), and that the sons with this length penis have twice as many sons as the ones who don't. In your grandsons' generation, then, the 10-inch penis gene will occur twice as frequently. The ratio between long and short genes increases geometrically with each generation, such that the tenth generation down (300 years or so -- a blink of an eye, geologically speaking), the long gene will outnumber the short one by more than a thousand to one.

But here’s your real problem, as I see it. It is not sufficient to demonstrate how the teeth of a population of beavers, over the course of several generations, will adapt themselves to the peculiar challenges of a new, and dominant, type of tree in their forest.You have to demonstrate how the mechanism you describe, which is actually a very conservative model of evolution (and one with which I really have no problem at all) can be used to explain the variety of species currently on the planet.

That is where I am convinced your conception of “evolution” breaks down. You cannot demonstrate how, absent deliberate, intelligent direction, a giraffe and a butterfly can trace their lineage back to the primordial ooze. What Darwinist ideologues try to do is say that billions and billions and years were required to produce the variety we now see. I respond by saying that there is no evidence to substantiate either the immense scope of time they assert, or the unbelievably numerous and diverse transitional forms that must have necessarily been passed through along the way.

And with this response, you show your scientific illiteracy yet again. Butterflies and giraffes share probably 30-40% of their DNA, Will. That's a significant piece of evidence suggesting a common ancestor all by itself. The fossil record gets a little murky when you deal with things that don't preserve well, like butterflies, but we can trace both the giraffe and the butterfly to creatures that lived in similar environments in the primordial oceans about 600 million years ago.

The Little Dude feigns to not understand that the obvious purport of my entire reference to and arguments in support of the tautological nature of so-called “natural selection” is that “natural selection” cannot explain the variety of species on the planet! The argument has no other valid application except on this one point. And, of course, the entire development of my argument on this thread was deliberately designed to lead to this question.

Darwinists would have us believe that “natural selection” (i.e. selection that occurs through purely “natural” processes, absent any external, intelligent direction) can explain the variety of speciation we now see. The Little Dude (and his assorted circle jerk minions participating on this thread) would have us believe that simple adaptation within limited parameters—adaptation that I accept precisely because it can be and has been observed, or because there is sufficiently definitive fossil evidence for it—is unjustifiably (and illogically) extrapolated to explain the diverse speciation on the planet. It is on this point that I call b***s***. There is quite simply no evidence for this. And, of course, this has been the ongoing problem for the past century and a half since Origin of the Species was first published. Initially, Darwin and his acolytes predicted that the fossil record would bear out the evidence of the transitional process so predicted. But it hasn’t! And so now we have been subjected to the various “predictions” or so-called “logical extrapolations” from the genetic relationships of all life forms. Lacking evidence of the transitional process, we are now assured that such evidence can be found within the genetic encoding of extant species. But, of course, everything must be inferred, and at no point can any external, intelligent influence be postulated. It all has to happen through beneficial genetic mutations over the course of huge amounts of time.

What do you mean, "lacking evidence of the transitional process"? Paleontologists find transitional fossils right where evolution predicts they would be all the time. Remember Tiktaalik roseae? You should consult this list of transitional fossils before you embarrass yourself on this subject again.

This results in other problems for the Darwinists, however. These problems, ironically enough, are highlighted in the article linked to by Doctor CamNC4Me here. The problem? Well, the fact that the fossil record seems to indicate that there have frequently been huge evolutionary “leaps”. These leaps defy the standard explanation of a slow, gradual process occurring over almost-incomprehensible eons of time.

When paleontologists talk about evolutionary "leaps", they're speaking of changes happening over time spans like 100,000 years, followed by 4.9 million years of relative staticness, instead of 5 million years of slow, constant evolution. Yes, there's a lot of debate over the speed of evolution, and the likelihood of "punctuated equilibria", etc. But all of these explanations are situated squarely with fundamental Darwinism. 100,000 years is still an "almost incomprehensible" time period. Hell, it's 10 times as long as you Mormon dolts think that the Earth has been around!

(Incidentally, although Doctor CamNC4Me apparently believes that this article is some kind of sledge-hammer of confirmation for evolutionary theory, I found it almost laughable! It is almost 100% speculative extrapolation of the observation of bacteria mutations; mutations that, even if they turned out to be dominant in subsequent reproduction (which the study does not demonstrate), don’t even come close to explaining the evolutionary leaps manifest in the fossil record.) But articles like this have become the staple of the Darwinists. I hear them touted all the time; I read them; I remain singularly unimpressed. It’s nothing but one person after another waxing eloquent over the emperor’s beautiful suit.

You're right, Will: the fossil record is incomplete, therefore a telepathic ape who doesn't want you to masturbate poofed the biosphere into existence.

The fact is that Darwinist ideologues are utterly dependent on the whole group being in constant agreement that there is no other possible answer to the questions of the bio-history of the planet (that is, any answer that doesn’t include or even hint at some higher intelligence being involved in the process). Having categorically rejected any possibility of intelligent design and direction when it comes to life on this planet, and yet lacking so many explanations for the evidence that defies the accepted model, the Darwinist god of the gaps must necessarily be the most amazing deity every conceived by the mind of man.

People who believe in evolution (read: people who don't suck at science) don't categorically reject intelligent design. Richard Dawkins doesn't do that. I don't do that. I doubt that The Dude or EAllusion do that. We only differ from you in that we actually understand what kind of data would constitute good evidence for intelligent design, and recognize that such data has not been found.

As for The Little Dude and his continued evasion of the import of my arguments … well, I’m not hardly surprised. I expected nothing else. It’s a simple matter to dismiss non-believers in Darwinist dogma as laughable ignoramuses. The Church of Darwin has evolved into a veritable juggernaut in the 21st century. It has effectively crushed all opposition, and no longer even has to subject itself to anything approaching a true “debate” over its tenets. Anyone even hinting at not being persuaded by the evidence that supposedly “proves” its doctrines is instantly branded an idiot heretic, by acclamation. No further examination is required. No questions permitted. No doubts allowed. And despite its utterly impregnable position as an unrivaled power on its throne, it will tolerate no dissension whatsoever. It characterizes all heretics as possible dangers to society who must be utterly silenced if not entirely eradicated from the body politic.

You'd better go plant a bomb in BYU's biology department, then, because they believe in evolution, too. That would require you to leave your shack, though, so I can understand if you don't actually follow through.

And yet I will continue to affirm, without shame, and with a high-degree of intellectual confidence, that I remain unconvinced. I am not ignorant of their arguments. Just unconvinced. Indeed, I am contrarily convinced. Everything I have learned about this planet upon which we live, and the various life forms that currently populate it, confirms my conviction that it all originates in patterns and designs that predate both this planet and its accompanying system. I am confident that life elsewhere in the galaxy (and beyond) will conform, more or less, to the patterns we see here.

Will, I want to thank you for making my job as a critic so easy. It makes Mormonism look really bad when even the Mopologists who can spell are too stupid to believe in evolution.

[_beastie]

What do you mean, "lacking evidence of the transitional process"? Paleontologists find transitional fossils right where evolution predicts they would be all the time. Remember Tiktaalik roseae? You should consult this list of transitional fossils before you embarrass yourself on this subject again.

Darn!! I hoped to see Will make even more of a spectacle out of himself before other posters helped him buy a tiny little clue.

[_Sethbag]

I am happy you and Sethbag are so self-assured even though you both seem a bit smug about it. Life must be grand when one is able to cut through it all and have all the answers.

I've never claimed to have all the answers. That it's justifiable to recognize the A&E story as mythological, and judge the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who teach it as history is as non-credible and unreliable is, I think, obvious. Why it's not obvious to you is a question, answering which will teach you a lot about how religion, and in this specific case, the Mormon worldview, has built up false claims for itself, and how it distorts one's vision to create blind spots to cover up for the evidence that ought to demonstrate the falsity of those claims. It's a very far-reaching question, and one that I believe is really the lynchpin for making sense of mankind's struggle with invented belief systems.

Look, I know the A&E story to be viewed as literal is problematic.

Ok, let's start here. What, exactly, is the problem that viewing the A&E story as literal poses?

For me though, I would like to figure out how it may work, even if figurative, in understanding human kind's relationship with what I believe in and that is a God.

The problem here is, "garbage in, garbage out". You'd like to learn some kind of universal truth by examining what you probably must admit by now to be a fable, a mythology invented by human beings. Do you expect this kind of source to really teach you something about the universe that is really true, and reliable, and trustworthy?

There is much in the world that at least for now I cannot answer accept through a faith in some higher power.

Granted. And it would appear to me that this sort of approach is a "God of the Gaps" faith. I've already seen, over the months and years you've been posting, that these gaps are getting narrower, and further in between. Does it scare you that they may disappear altogether at some point, and there really won't be anything left that "requires" a God to you? I think this scares a lot of people, and leads a lot of people to avoid answering the questions which they currently use to justify God, so that they don't have to give up their faith.

Evolution may be true. But for it to start all on its own by mere chance, for this world to just come into existence all on its own, and work so incredibly wondrously as far as all the parts of it working seems to require a higher leap of faith at least for me than believing it was all just a cosmic accident.

And the crux of it all is that this description of things is engineered by the opponents of science specifically to make the scientific explanation look ridiculous. But it's all a big straw man.

Scientists don't say the world came into existence on its own, by chance or whatever. This world came into existence because there was enough dust and minerals and metals and gases and whatnot in the inner part of the solar system, as it was forming, that several rocky planets were able to form. Earth is one of them. Earth didn't just "come into existence" on its own any more than Mars or Mercury did. They came into existence as a result of the materials that were on hand, and in the natural course of these materials being operated on by normal physics.

The Earth appears to us to work so wonderously because it worked in a way that life was able to come into existence, and eventually, a billion years later, homo sapiens had evolved brains big enough, and complex enough, to realize how great it is that we're here.

Where are creatures on Mercury? Where are the creatures on Venus, or on Mars? What, you mean those places didn't just "happen" to work well enough for life? Any idea why the Intelligent Designer would put three rocky but dead planets around the Sun, while he was putting the one planet that "just happened" to support life around it too?

What if we discover that only one in a thousand stars has a planet with characteristics that, like Earth's, support life? Is it so obvious that an Intelligent Designer must have made that one planet just to support his creatures, and "who knows" why he made the other 999 star systems that don't support any life at all?

Anyhow, scientists aren't asserting that Earth, and life, is a big cosmic "accident". The materials were in the right place, at the right time. There are plenty of other planets, and indeed whole star systems, that weren't so "lucky" as Earth. Does the lack of "luck" on the part of all these other, dead worlds help, or hinder the argument that Earth is just too lucky not to have been created on purpose by an intelligent being?

[_truth dancer]

Hey Jason,

Jason, BC's nonsense is not going to be helpful. While he believes that he makes sense and has a theory that can blend scripture with reality, he is only kidding himself. It is craziness and really just demonstrates how far the human mind can go to try to make sense of the nonsensical.

I am happy you and Sethbag are so soelf assured even though you both seem a bit smug about it. Life must be grand when one is able to cut through it all and have all the answers.

Look, I know the A&E story to be viewed as literal is problematic. For me though, I would like to figure out how it may work, even if figurative, in understanding human kind's relationship with what I believe in and that is a God. There is much in the world that at least for now I cannot answer accept through a faith in some higher power. Evolution may be true. But for it to start all on its own by mere chance, for this world to just come into existence all on its own, and work so incredibly wondrously as far as all the parts of it working seems to require a higher leap of faith at least for me than believing it was all just a cosmic accident.

I'm sorry if my comments came across as smug. It was not my intention. I was just trying to share my personal experience; letting go of the need to try to make sense of the (what is in my opinion), nonsensical was truly life altering. It really did fill my life with a sense of peace that brought a whole new light or energy to my life.

As always I do not ever think I have the answers to the ultimate questions or believe anyone understands the totality of our universe but I do believe it is typically healthy to let go of myths that are outdated or even hurtful.

In fact Jason, I believe that myths "work" when they help us manage the real world, when they do not they only make living more complicated; they take the joy away and disrupt the very purpose for their existence.

The A&E story in my opinion does not serve humanity nor does it fit with our civilized human understanding of reality. While it may have worked for the nomadic tribal men four millennia ago, I think it is obsolete, even archaic. I think it is hurting not helping.

My personal opinion is that one of the reasons humans today are so miserable, unhappy, and unhealthy is because we have thwarted our ability to embrace our new myths, or the stories that fit with our modern day experience. By relying on ancient stories we are living without the stories we need to live in our world. Our new stories are those that make sense with our reality and our experience, with what we know as true.

Anyway, just how I see it.

~td~