Captivity?

[Serpwidgets]

I'm all giddy about the link above that I posted. I'll tell you why...

In the kingdom of Human Pursuits (entertainment, money, love, happiness, etc.) there are several phyla.

One of these is Phylum: Disciplines. It includes skills that are developed. these can be thinking/analyzing, engineering, athletics, arts, etc.

In this phylum is the Class of Ideas. It involves things that are learned, discovered, studied, and includes religion, philosophy, and science.

In the Cass of ideas is the Order "Science." It includes math, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, medicine, etc.

One branch of this Order is the Family of Mathematics. This involves calculating/manipulating numbers, such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus.

In the Family of Math a new genus has recently come about. Genus: Algorithmics is where calculations/manipulations are made through the use of loops, logical branching, and feedback. This genus was made practical by the proliferation of computers, and includes the quickly evolving fields of games, data compression, simulators, and artificial intelligence, to name a few.

Within this genus -- because of replication, mutation, and competition in the arena of scientific ideas -- a new Species, Evolution, has come about.

Thanks to programs like Avida, the process of evolution -- which was generally only considered in the context of biology -- can now be studied as a form of pure mathematics. As such, it will be able to establish connections between input and output. That is -- just like with Geometry -- postulates, theorems, and proofs regarding evolving systems will emerge from this new branch of math. Through this, we will be able to understand the relationships between different parameters, how each affects or does not affect the others. We can do this in a system where all parts are known and individual parts can be changed in controlled experiments, instead of trying to piece together parts of a humungous puzzle (many of which will never be found) from a single instance. Ideally, we will learn a great deal about how all of the parts interact to produce a predictable "deterministic" output.

This math may not apply in a forward "deterministic" way to life on Earth because life involves random mutation, nor will it necessarily apply in a backward "deterministic" way because we are only looking at a tiny piece of the entire picture. But I think one thing it will prove is that life, as something which is subject to replication/mutation/competition, does evolve. On a higher level it will definitely allow us to see the picture more clearly because we will be able to relate well-established "proofs" and "rules" and "laws" to the process.

Like any science has, I think it will also find use in applications we currently cannot even imagine. I don't think anyone had imagined that trying to measure our velocity upon an "ether" would have led us to discover the means to understand and utilize the release of nuclear energy. I am very excited over what this new branch of mathematics, which is still in its infancy, might have in store for us.

 

[Serpwidgets]

So why was it written as seven days? Many people take that as fact.

People will claim they take it literally, but it cannot be taken literally because the sun was not created until the fourth "day." Therefore "day" MUST be interpreted. It is then a matter of "how do you prefer to interpret the word day" and "in what context was it written." Some people arbitrarily choose to interpret it as a specific period of time that they want it to mean, but that choice does not make their interpretation any more valid than anyone else's. :spinner:

 

[Alias47]

WHEW!!!!

I am glad I missed this entire discussion...it would have kept me up at night.
And what a seriously LONG read...discussing a topic that has been a source of frustration and argument for longer than ANY of us has been living.
Personally...you can go round and round...and show points to back up either side...what it really boils down to is personal belief.

If you believe in the Christian version of creation...you are basing all of your argument in your deeply rooted faith...even the links that "prove" creation are shown with the assumption that the Christian God is, in fact, real.

If you believe in evolution...your arguments are based in theories that have accumulated through natural observation. Theories that have been expounded on...and added to as evidence of new, unexplainable, organisms...both living and extinct...is found. These theories are not irrefutable...just educated guesses.

And Serp hit it right on the head when he said that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. They are only presented as mutually exclusive by people with closed minds who believe the idea that they invest their faith in must be the correct one. This is called passion...and can lead to some very deeply embraced discussions...as we have seen here...

10+ pages of people arguing over who is correct...when neither side can prove their stance and nobody will concede that the other has ground to stand on...

Personally I am an agnostic...I don't believe in a Christian God (or any for that matter)...but I won't rule it out...really, who the hell am I to say if there is or isn't? I went to a military catholic school in high school. It is at a Catholic abbey in Illinois...run by priests...full JROTC every day all day...I took four years of Theology...have read the bible from cover to cover 3 times...and have had creation presented to me with "irrefutable" evidence. I found it was only irrefutable if you happened to believe in Christianity.

I personally subscribe to the evolution theory...flawed as it may be.
I believe that it isn't far from the truth of matters...just missing some pieces...as any BILLIONS of years old mystery will be.



Just another little comment:

The common Christian explanation for the timeline presented in Genesis (depending on how literal the belief of your sect of Christianity is) is that "In the beginning" (sorry, couldn't help it) days could have lasted for eons...and that men may have lived (once original sin was introduced) for thousands and thousands of years...and our lifespans gradually decreased from our first ancestors, Adam and Eve. At least that is the explanation I have heard from VARIOUS sources...not limited only to the Catholic religion.

 

[CAV]

They are only presented as mutually exclusive by people with closed minds.

Wow Derek, nothing like alienating your audience before you even make your point.

The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why seemingly educated people get wrapped around the axel over an "idea" that doesn't change the big picture either way. The length of a Genesis day, be it 24 hours or 24 millennia is really inconsequential. Why anguish over it? :shrugs:

 

[Alias47]

Wow Derek, nothing like alienating your audience before you even make your point.

Yeah, thanks... :dancer:
Only the people who put themselves in this category fit...causing a vicious circle of redundancy.

The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why seemingly educated people get wrapped around the axel over an "idea" that doesn't change the big picture either way. The length of a Genesis day, be it 24 hours or 24 millennia is really inconsequential. Why anguish over it? :shrugs:

I agree...I was just presenting a definition that has been previously presented to me...for the people who were deliberating the subject in this thread.

 

[CAV]

for the people who were deliberating the subject in this thread.

With the exception of about five people, most stopped reading this thread about 11 pages ago.

 

[Alias47]

I understand...
I just STARTED reading it today...

I have mixed feelings...wish I wouldn't have missed it...glad I did...LOL

I know the discussion of time has come up repeatedly...just wanted to address the clarification with which I have been inundated on numerous occasions.

I apologize...just couldn't leave well enough alone...you and I are very much alike for having very different opinions of the world...just HAD to put my 2 cents in...:shrugs:



Least you could do is give me a penny for my thoughts so at least I can recoup HALF my money

 

[coyote]

People will claim they take it literally, but it cannot be taken literally because the sun was not created until the fourth "day." Therefore "day" MUST be interpreted. It is then a matter of "how do you prefer to interpret the word day" and "in what context was it written." Some people arbitrarily choose to interpret it as a specific period of time that they want it to mean, but that choice does not make their interpretation any more valid than anyone else's. :spinner:

Well, I have investigated the validity of accepting the Bible as literal fact, as Fundamentalism does. I found some real problems with that. Now, I am Catholic, And we interpret the Bible rather than take it literally. :argue:

For example, If the Noah story is the literal truth, and we add to it the knowledge we have gained since, then Noah and his family and every animal on board were infected with every parasite and disease in existence. This must be so, using Fundamentalist logic, because only those things Noah saved on the Ark continued to exist.

Second, After finally disembarking, the ravenous predators would consume all the herbivores. No more cattle, giraffes, antelope, horses to repopulate the earth.

Even if the herbivores somehow survive, all their food is gone having been drowned in the waters. And everyone is still infected with parasites and disease.

The mosquitoes would feast on them all and they'd all die from exsanguination.

The gene pools for every surviving species is too small to produce viable populations to cover the earth.

Adam and Eve had three sons (yes three, do your reading). When the sons came of age to select wives and start families, thus populating the earth with humans, where did the wives come from? They did have wives. For an intriguing answer read Genesis 2. I have had Fundamentalists try to come up with their own ideas of where the wives came from. But doing that negates the insistence they place on taking the Bible literally.

So, the fossil record is a hoax? I don't buy that. Seven days, can not mean seven human days. Catholics do not reject evolution as a mechanism or system put in place by God. God did say "Be fruitful and multiply and cover the earth". He must have know how that was going to be made possible. Evolution enables the few life forms present at the beginning to do just that. I do not say that evolution is the only mechanisim at work. Nor do I think we understand life and evolution as completely as we think we understand it. We are obviously still very primitive beings. We have the creative abilities to produce marvelous technology and understandings of the world we live in. Yet, we are incapable of loving our neighbor, being humble, and being good stewards of the Creation. We are not as highly evolved as we believe we are. If we are more enlightened than our distant ancestors, how come more of us don't see that? :headbang:

 

[countMEout]

Catholics do not reject evolution as a mechanism or system put in place by God. We are not as highly evolved as we believe we are.

A lot of catholics due not reject evolution because they don't fully understand it because they were never taught it. As in many places it is not mandatory to teach such basic theories. I am waiting for gravity to be removed from most syllabi soon.

On the idea that we are not as highly evolved as we think we are. Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn. Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment. EVOLUTION has no goal no plan no blueprint no daily goals on advancement it just occurs and we are able to "moniter" it on a few basic criteria.

 

[TrpnBils]

With the exception of about five people, most stopped reading this thread about 11 pages ago.

:laugh01: yeah that's probably about right. I dunno though, I've been with this from the very beginning, have read every post as it came about, and thought about this whole topic more in the past 3 months than I probably have in the past 4 years. Personally, I'm glad to see what has gone on here because this is obviously a very hot topic. People stick to their beliefs. I don't think there is ever going to be any defining proof for either of either creation or evolution that is going to convince the "nonbelievers" from either school of thought. But to educate people and present both sides is, in my opinion, more important than reaching a final answer. At least this way it lets people see things from multiple points of view in an open setting and lets them decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. As for me, I'm stuck with more questions now than when I came into this discussion, so something must be working right. I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one either.

 

[CAV]

to educate people and present both sides is, in my opinion, more important than reaching a final answer. At least this way it lets people see things from multiple points of view in an open setting and lets them decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. As for me, I'm stuck with more questions now than when I came into this discussion, so something must be working right. I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one either.

On this we both agree!. This assumption was the reason I made the "random professor" comment. The biggest failing of modern education IMO is that it fails to teach alternatives in the curriculum. We have evolved (Did I just use that word?? :uhoh: ) into a society that takes the easy way out of educating our next generation. Instead of encouraging critical thinking and the objective rationalization of topics, we have accepted the disastrous entrance of personal and political agendas into the classrooms of our youth. Until we as a society draw a line in the sand and demand that our educators, their agencies and their unions become apolitical and responsible for content, our hope for objectivity in the classroom, will remain extinct.

 

[WAS1]

Adam and Eve had more than 3 sons. Gen.5v4 indicates they had lots of children, so I assume their wives must have been relatives?

Not that this has anything to do with the thread, just a reply to COYOTE`s post.

 

[coyote]

A lot of catholics due not reject evolution because they don't fully understand it because they were never taught it. As in many places it is not mandatory to teach such basic theories. I am waiting for gravity to be removed from most syllabi soon.

On the idea that we are not as highly evolved as we think we are. Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn. Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment. EVOLUTION has no goal no plan no blueprint no daily goals on advancement it just occurs and we are able to "moniter" it on a few basic criteria.

I was a biology major in college and have a degree in Veterinary Technology.

 

[jazzgeek]

On the idea that we are not as highly evolved as we think we are. Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn.

Wait a second; you're in Rochester. You're ALREADY in a dark, cramped world.

(I can get away saying this because I just moved back to WI after living in Western NY :nyah: )

Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment.

Cool! I wanna be one of those deep sea fangly fishes with the attached lures.

regards,
jazz

 

[Serpwidgets]

Well if later today giant caves dropped all over the planet. We lived in a dark cramped world then our evolution would take a drastic turn. Possibly returning to crawling on four limbs and maybe advanced night vision for the new dark environment.

Evolution requires competition. In "civilized" human societies, genotype has nothing to do with how many offspring are produced. Civilization removes competition from the equation, and thus stops the process of evolution (as a consequence of genotype being shaped by selection) within those populations. Drift, yes. Evolve, no.

 

[Alias47]

I am currently reading Robert A. Heinlein's "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" (My first Heinlein novel...and I am HOOKED to say the least)

Today while eating lunch, I just happened on a page or two that fits this discussion very well...we'll see what you all think.

"...introduced me to the fact that theology is a study with no answers because it has no subject matter.

No subject matter? That's right, no subject matter whatever-just colored water with artificial sweetening. "Theo-" = "God" and "-logy" = word(s), i.e., any word ending in "-ology" means "talk about" or "discussion of" or "words concerning" or "study of" a subject named in the first part of the word, whether it is "hippology", or "astrology", or "proctology", or "eschatology", or "scatology", or something else. But to discuss any subject, it is first necessary to agree on what it is you are discussing. "Hippology" presents no problem; everybody has seen a horse. "Proctology"-everybody has seen an arsehole...or, if you have been so carefully brought up that you've never seen one, go down to your city hall; you will find the place full of them. But the subject tagged by the spell-symbol "theology" is a horse of another color.

"God", or "god", or "gods"-have you ever seen "God"? If so, where and when, how tall was She and what did She weigh? What was Her skin color? Did She have a belly button and, if so, why? Did She have breasts? For what purpose? How about organs of reproduction and of excretion-did She or didn't She?

(If you think I am making fun of the idea of a God fashioned in Man's image or vice versa, you have much to go on.)

I will agree that the notion of an anthropomorphic God went out of fashion some time ago with most professional godsmen...but that doesn't get us any nearer to defining the English spell-symbol "God". Let's consult fundamentalist preachers...because Episcopalians won't even let God into His sanctuary unless He shines His shoes and trims that awful beard...and Unitarians won't let Him in at all.

So let's listen to fundamentalists: "God is the Creator. He Created the World. The existance of the World proves that it was created; therefore there is a Creator. That Creator we call 'God'. Let us all bow down and worship Him, for He is Almighty and His works proclaim His might."

Will someone please page Dr. S.I. Hayakawa? Or, if he is busy, any student who received a B+ or better in Logic 101? I'm looking for someone able to discuss the fallacy of circular reasoning and also the concatenative process by which abstract words can be logically defined by building on concrete words. What is a "concrete" word? It is a spell-symbol used to tag something you can point to and thereby agree on, e.g., "cat," "sailboat," "ice-skating"- agree with such certainty that when you say "sailboat" there is no chance whatever that I will think you mean a furry quadruped with retractile claws.

With the spell-symbol "God" there is no way to achieve such agreement because there is nothing to point to. Circular reasoning can't get you out of this dilemma. Pointing to something (the physical world) and asserting that it has to have a Creator and this Creator necessarily has such-and-such attributes proves nothing save that you have made certain assertions without proof. You have pointed at a physical thing, the physical world; you have asserted that this physical thing has to have a "Creator" (Who told you that? What's his mailing address? Who told him?). But to assert that something physical was created out of nothing- not even empty space- by a Thingamajig you can't point to is not to make a philosophical statement or any sort of statement, it is mere noise, amphigory, sound, and fury signifying nothing."

Chew on this for a few.

 

[Santa]

Have you ever seen a million dollars? How about a billion, or a trillion?
I bet not! But our government spends trillions of dollars every year. Several thousand of that comes out of my pocket so I have no doubt that it exist.

Logic? The last post was a complete waste of words and twisted semantics to prove absolutely nothing.

And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong? Chew on that or just go back to your book!

 

[Clint Boyer]

Have you ever seen a million dollars? How about a billion, or a trillion?

I haven't, but it surely could be piled up in front of me to touch.

Made sense to me.

And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong?

Yeah, that's what doesn't make sense to me. Who says what is the right path? If you make the wrong choice you are banished to hell? What a loving way to live.

 

[Serpwidgets]

PIAGET'S STAGES OF MORAL JUDGMENT

Piaget studied many aspects of moral judgment, but most of his findings fit into a two-stage theory. Children younger than 10 or 11 years think about moral dilemmas one way; older children consider them differently. As we have seen, younger children regard rules as fixed and absolute. They believe that rules are handed down by adults or by God and that one cannot change them. The older child's view is more relativistic. He or she understands that it is permissible to change rules if everyone agrees. Rules are not sacred and absolute but are devices which humans use to get along cooperatively.

At approximately the same time--10 or 11 years--children's moral thinking undergoes other shifts. In particular, younger children base their moral judgments more on consequences, whereas older children base their judgments on intentions. When, for example, the young child hears about one boy who broke 15 cups trying to help his mother and another boy who broke only one cup trying to steal cookies, the young child thinks that the first boy did worse. The child primarily considers the amount of damage--the consequences--whereas the older child is more likely to judge wrongness in terms of the motives underlying the act (Piaget, 1932, p. 137).

---------------

KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey.

Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained.

Stage 1 children say, "It's wrong to steal" and "It's against the law," but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole--a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations.

Stage 6: Universal Principles. Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

Summary

At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.

At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong?

At stage 1, children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. "Doing the right thing" is obeying authority and avoiding punishment.

 

[Alias47]

Have you ever seen a million dollars? How about a billion, or a trillion?

No...but I have seen money...OFTEN. I am able to surmise by the fact that it is TANGIBLE that if you took 50,000 of the other pieces of paper that look like the 20 in my pocket, you would have a million dollars.
Show me your God...PLEASE. I beg you...let me hold His hand and see that He is a real tangible object...then I can quantify your statement...otherwise you are comparing apples and bricks...not even close to being in the same category.

Logic? The last post was a complete waste of words and twisted semantics to prove absolutely nothing.

It wasn't intended to "prove" anything...other than you are arguing using what you presume to be fact based upon YOUR faith...but what really amounts to an illogical and irrational argument, because your fact is all tied up in something that is intangible and entirely unprovable.

And by the way, Alias47, what if in the end you are wrong? Chew on that or just go back to your book!

If you had actually read (or maybe UNDERSTOOD) what I have written...I consider myself Agnostic. I don't currently believe that there is a "god" or a "higher power" of any sort, regardless of what the world's religions may call "it"...but, like I said EARLIER in this thread, who am I to say?
If there is such a "being" I lead my life the best I can, by being as good to the people around me, friends, family, loved ones, and strangers, alike. If, upon my death, this "being" is apparently real, if "it" condemns me to some sort of alternate existance because I didn't "bow down" to it's might...then I would rather be in the alternate existance than have been a tool my whole life...If I can't get into your heaven after having led a life of caring and giving...then it isn't a place for me anyhow.

My current view of religion is that it is a "safety blanket" for adults.
If you look at the progression of religions through the history of man...religion has always been used to explain the unexplainable...to give credibility to what man cannot comprehend. After the polytheism of Greek and Roman times (if you read any greek or roman mythology, all the myths were used to explain natural phenomena that can modernly be explained through science) most religions became montheistic--One God. Across the board, these monotheistic religions are used to "explain" metaphysics (which is unexplainable using facts)...Who are we? What is our purpose? Where did we come from? And most importantly, what happens after we die? Hence the "safety blanket"...giving humans security in their common fear and uncertainty of death (just like a blanket for a toddler who is afraid of the dark). I do not condemn others for their beliefs...and if it makes the world a better place, so be it (although most of the major tragedy and violence that has occured in the last couple thousand years is fueled by religion). I choose to believe something different...what I do condemn is people forcing their beliefs on me, both directly and through their legislative agenda...this is a complete violation of my person...as much a rape would be.

I currently believe that after death...we are worm food. Just because we have a conscience does not mean there is an afterlife...or a place for our fragile human psyche and personal feeling of self after we die.