Open Thread

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 7th, 2012 at 2:04 pm and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

158 Responses to “Open Thread”

angryoldfatman Says:
November 12th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Another example of "scientific consensus" being inhibitive to proper science: Alzheimer's research.

Takeaway quote from the article:
Dr. Wischik says he and other tau-focused scientists have been shouted down over the years by what he calls the "amyloid orthodoxy," a hard-charging group of researchers who believed passionately that beta amyloid was the chief cause of the disease. "Science is politics," he says. "And the politics of amyloid won."

Comment by angryoldfatman — November 12, 2012 @ 5:02 pm

velikovskys Says:
November 12th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Meanwhile, scientists Dr. Wischik accuses of wrongly fixating on beta amyloid, such as Harvard neurologist Dennis Selkoe, say the evidence for pursuing amyloid is strong. "Claude I think sees the world somewhat darkly…if we've made our case more potently for [beta amyloid], there is nothing wrong with that," Dr. Selkoe says. He adds that he supports tau research, as well, and believes drugs to attack both beta amyloid and tau will be necessary

Yin and yang

Comment by velikovskys — November 12, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 20th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Once again Alvin Plantinga hits the nail on the head.

From here

quote:

Nagel’s rejection of theism does not seem to be fundamentally philosophical. My guess is this antipathy to theism is rather widely shared. Theism severely limits human autonomy. According to theism, we human beings are also at best very junior partners in the world of mind. We are not autonomous, not a law unto ourselves; we are completely dependent upon God for our being and even for our next breath.

end quote;

Looks like a must read book as well. I plan to check it out.

Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False
By Thomas Nagel

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 20, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 22nd, 2012 at 10:20 am
Hey all,

I would like to ask some of the non-fundie folks here to help me get my head around this…..

how many adams?

I don't understand the reason(s) for scientists to postulate an original population of over 10,000 individuals. Or how 10,000 individuals qualified as human while their parents did not.

can someone help a brother out?

thanks in advance

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 22, 2012 @ 10:20 am

Eugen Says:
November 22nd, 2012 at 3:46 pm
I would hope it wasn't 10 000 Adams but 5000 Adams and 5000 Eves.
And 5000 snakes.

Sorry I wasn't of much help FFM.

Comment by Eugen — November 22, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

Guts Says:
November 23rd, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Histogram of frequency of “A” at A/G variable positions on human Chr 22 within the CEU population. This is the same data as in Figure 2, but switched around to make it directly comparable to Figure 4 (below). There are approximately 60 alleles in each bin, meaning that there are about 60 alleles with 10% A and 90% G, 60 alleles with 20% A and 80% G, 60 alleles with 30% A and 70% G, etc. How can evolutionary processes account for such an even allele frequency distribution?

Genetic drift does tend to result in differences between populations, but human populations are, despite what many people think, extremely similar to each other at the genetic level. One measure of differentiation, called Fst, which measures the amount of ‘total’ genetic variation that is due to between-population differences, is about 10% in humans, i.e. pretty small. So we don’t expect big differences between populations, except where there has been local selection for different genetic variants – e.g. lactase or the Duffy blood group protein.

Comment by Guts — November 23, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 23rd, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Guts,

So we don’t expect big differences between populations, except where there has been local selection for different genetic variants – e.g. lactase or the Duffy blood group protein.

I'm wondering if things like interbreeding with non humans like Neanderthals and other related hominids coupled with local, regional and global bottlenecks might account for the small genetic diversity we see just as well as a large founding population and drift.

Is there a way to test this?

In the end it all comes down to just exactly how we define “species”.

As best as I can tell both Science and the Bible agree that all humans today are descended from just one man.

The only question would be did this guy and his children recognize that “there was not found a helper fit for him”(Gen 2:20) . If the founding population was 10,000 the answer would appear be no if it was two it would be yes.

As all fundamentalist kids eventually ask “Just exactly who did Cain,Able and Seth marry?”

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 23, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

Guts Says:
November 23rd, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Mainstream science does not say we came from one man or from one woman. That's what all the hoopla was about with biologos and the southern baptist church on Christianity Today not too long ago.

There are two kind of genetic estimation of effective population size (Ne):
inbreeding Ne and variance Ne. The first one is based on the increase of inbreeding in the population over the time, and the second one on the change in the allelic frequencies over time. So they are virtually always testing for that kind of stuff.

If you like science than u like mainstream science, then you must admit genesis is metaphorical, if you're still in the Bronze Age you must declare science is mistaken all of it, and that has contradictory implications for your world view. Regardless good luck, I won't be returning to defend any of these assertions, because I don't see the point. I'm disgusted by the fact that in this day and age we are still in Dayton mode, wtf, I mean really, I'm tired of it, even when I was an ID creationist I was tired of it

Comment by Guts — November 23, 2012 @ 9:17 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 23rd, 2012 at 11:55 pm
hey Guts,

Mainstream science does not say we came from one man or from one woman.

What is meant by genetic Adam and genetic Eve If not one man and woman?

If you like science than u like mainstream science, then you must admit genesis is metaphorical

What part of Genesis has mainstream science proved to be metaphorical? Please be specific with chapter and verse not the Sunday school flannel board version

I realize that science constrains ones interpretation of Genesis just like it does for all scripture. God is the author of nature afterall

But I don’t know of anything in Genesis that has moved from the realm of fact to the realm of metaphor. What am I missing?

if you're still in the Bronze Age you must declare science is mistaken all of it, and that has contradictory implications for your world view.

What?? Who is saying that science is mistaken about anything???? Not this fundamentalist.

I happen to believe that all of Genesis is literally true and the earth is billions of years old and I have no problem with evolution with common decent or any other findings of science that I can think of.

Are you saying that my exegesis of the text is in error? if so you need to present your case from the text.

I'll warn you that although I'm not an expert in the nuances of scientific literature I'm pretty prepared for a Bible study challenge.

I'm disgusted by the fact that in this day and age we are still in Dayton mode, wtf,

I did not know what the flip "Dayton mode" was so I had to look it up?

Are you saying that because I asked for clarification about the size of founding populations that I wish to outlaw the teaching of evolution?

Come on Guts that a little bit of a stretch don't you think?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 23, 2012 @ 11:55 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 24th, 2012 at 12:09 am
The first one is based on the increase of inbreeding in the population over the time, and the second one on the change in the allelic frequencies over time. So they are virtually always testing for that kind of stuff.

I think you misunderstand the question. Or prehaps I am misunderstanding your answer

I'm not asking about genetic estimation of effective population size.

I'm asking about the possible causes of genetic diverisity in humans. Can we discover where said diverisity comes from?

For example would diverisity that came from hybridizing with nonhuman hominids look the same as diversity from a large founding population?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 24, 2012 @ 12:09 am

Daniel Smith Says:
November 24th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
As all fundamentalist kids eventually ask “Just exactly who did Cain,Able and Seth marry?”

And any good fundamentalist parent will answer with Genesis 5:4 – "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (BTW, I don't think Abel married anyone!)

Comment by Daniel Smith — November 24, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 24th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
any good fundamentalist parent will answer with Genesis 5:4

To which any smartass fundi kid worth his snuff will reply

(Lev 18:9) You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 24, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
November 24th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
If we examine Genesis closely, it is essentially 2 creation stories, the first one being uncannily close (for a narrative from over 3 millenia ago) to modern scientific findings, but the second one being steeped in metaphor. Mnemonic metaphor, no less, which is what is found throughout Orthodox Judaism's writings and ritual. Tables aren't tables, bread isn't bread, empty chairs aren't empty chairs, etc.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has interesting observations on the Biblical creation stories here and here (video).

Comment by angryoldfatman — November 24, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 24th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
If we examine Genesis closely, it is essentially 2 creation stories

I would say we in Genesis have a bold unequivocal statement that God created everything "in the begining" followed by one story told from two different perspectives

The first is about the preparation of a land where God and man can commune and the second is about the preparation of the human to dwell in that very special land.

This story is then recapitulated again and again in the pages of Scripture First in the story of the Exodus and the building of the Tabernacle.

Then in the conquest and the construction of the Temple

Then in the incarnation and the establishment of the church

Then the story finds it’s final glorious fulfillment in the story of the second coming and the decent of the new heavens and the new earth.

It all fits together is an amazing multifaceted whole……. Type and Antitype. Shadow and Substance.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has interesting observations

Although I find Schroeder’s speculations fascinating I would suggest that if you want to understand what the Bible says it would be better to go to a Biblical scholar like John Sailhamer instead of a scientist who dabbles in these things .

never the less I promise that I'm not trying to have a debate about the Bible. It's perfectly cool with me whatever you want to believe. If we had an afternoon to share a beverage I’m sure I could convince you of this take but I don't think a blog is the best place to have that conversation

For now I'm just interested in the nature of the required founding population of our species. That's all. Can you help me out?

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 24, 2012 @ 7:57 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 12:11 am
fifth monarchy man wrote:

For now I'm just interested in the nature of the required founding population of our species. That's all. Can you help me out?

Sorry for beating around the bush. Let me be more direct.

Schroeder's take on it, which I find interesting because he uses medieval Torah scholars as his Biblical sources, is that Adam was not the first hominid.

According to him (or should I say his interpretation of Nahmanides) Adam had ancestors, but these ancestors did not have souls – i.e., the image of God. Adam was the first of mankind to have the image of God, and with it, the capability of moral choices.

So the hominid fossils we find today are exactly what they appear to be, and Adam is exactly what the Bible says he is.

Shroeder doesn't mention the snake or fruit though. I won't delve into those unless you want to do so.

Comment by angryoldfatman — November 25, 2012 @ 12:11 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Schroeder's take on it, which I find interesting because he uses medieval Torah scholars as his Biblical sources, is that Adam was not the first hominid.

That is my opinion as well.

The text is does not say how God formed the man from the dust so I see no reason why he could not have done it in the womb of a hominid.

As for “Serpent” and the “fruit”. I’m not too concerned if these were actual physical phenomena or their spiritual equivalents. The result is the same regardless.

My question however is more genetic/biological in nature.

My understanding is that the scientific consensus is that dispite the fact that there was a genetic Adam we need an original population of at least 10,000 individuals to account for the genetic diverisity we see today.

I’m interested in how this figure was arrived at and if mechanisms like hybridization could produce the same effects.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2012 @ 11:13 am

Daniel Smith Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
To which any smartass fundi kid worth his snuff will reply

(Lev 18:9) You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home.

And the parent will point out that the Law came later.

Comment by Daniel Smith — November 25, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
I believe it is foolish to use the present scientific consensus to interpret the bible. Scientific knowledge is always changing and today's consensus could be tomorrow's laughingstock. Thomas Aquinas based some of his views of creation on 'spontaneous generation' (the scientific consensus of his day that held that life could form spontaneously based on the fact that maggots just appeared in raw meat). Needless to say those views appear foolish today.

Comment by Daniel Smith — November 25, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

velikovskys Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Ffm,
My understanding is that the scientific consensus is that dispite the fact that there was a genetic Adam we need an original population of at least 10,000 individuals to account for the genetic diverisity we see today.

I’m interested in how this figure was arrived at and if mechanisms like hybridization could produce the same effects.

"For instance, studies of DNA from maternally inherited cell structures called mitochondria established that all humans can trace their maternal lineage back to one woman — a mitochondrial Eve — who lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago"

This is different from a single "genetic Adam or Eve" , I believe.

"But, just as mitochondria can lead us back to a single woman, parts of a person's genome inherited from both their mother and father can also be followed back in time, with individual genes traced back to points before any mutations had developed, when just one version — a common ancestor — of that gene existed. Because of the way a person's maternal and paternal chromosomes shuffle together to create diversity in their sperm or egg cells, some parts of a person's genome inevitably share common ancestors more recently than other parts"

Comment by velikovskys — November 25, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

velikovskys Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Ffm,

Ed Feser has an interesting discussion about an historical A&E

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co...

Comment by velikovskys — November 25, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
hey Daniel,

And the parent will point out that the Law came later.

and then the smartass kid will inquire as to whether the prohibition against incest and other deviant sex is moral law or not.

If it is then it reflects the character of God and is always valid.

If not then there is no moral or biblical reason that a man can’t marry his sister today and therefore we have no reason to object to redefineing marrage to reflect this fact.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2012 @ 6:12 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
I believe it is foolish to use the present scientific consensus to interpret the bible.

amen brother.

I happen to think that lots of what we feel is arcaic about the Bible is actually just the scientific consensus of our fore fathers read into the text.

It would be foolish to repeat the same mistake.

That is not what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to understand what the scientific consensus is exactly to see if it's possible to fit into the Biblical paradigm.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2012 @ 6:19 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
all humans can trace their maternal lineage back to one woman — a mitochondrial Eve — who lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago"

This is different from a single "genetic Adam or Eve" , I believe.

How is it different?

Are you reading "Eve" to mean a Caucasian woman in a fig leaf bikini on a sunday school wall ?

When I say "genetic Eve" I just mean an individual female ancestor that all humans share.

I think that such a woman existed is beyond doubt acourding to science. I'm just trying to understand what I can about her.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2012 @ 6:29 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Hey velikovskys,

Thanks for the link I would share Ed Feser's take here.

10,000 individuals would not be a problem philosophically or theologically for me or most of the fundies I know.

However I’m wondering about how it works biologically Is it really nessary or can other phenomena produce what we see in the genome?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2012 @ 6:45 pm

velikovskys Says:
November 26th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Ffm,

Are you reading "Eve" to mean a Caucasian woman in a fig leaf bikini on a sunday school wall

More Raquel Welch in" 1,000,000 BC "

Comment by velikovskys — November 26, 2012 @ 6:32 pm

velikovskys Says:
November 26th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Ffm,

When I say "genetic Eve" I just mean an individual female ancestor that all humans share

" It’s possible that after a few generations, the mtDNA of the other women died out. If a woman produces only male offspring, her mtDNA won't be passed along, since children don’t receive mtDNA from their father. This means that while the woman’s sons will have her mtDNA, her grandchildren won’t, and her line will be lost"

So while "Eve's"mtDnA is in all of us,her DNA is not the source of all DNA.

Comment by velikovskys — November 26, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 27th, 2012 at 7:59 am
So while "Eve's"mtDnA is in all of us,her DNA is not the source of all DNA.

Now we are talking about the same thing. I'm wondering about the rest of the DNA in a human. Does science demand that it comes from other humans or could it come from closely related but nonhuman animals.

It’s possible that after a few generations, the mtDNA of the other women died out.

Is it also possible that there were no "other women" just non-humans that interbred with the children of eve from time to time?

In a Recent conversation with KC we talked about the phenomena of eastern Coyotes and Grey wolfs interbreeding over the last 50 years or so. In that short amount of time grey wolf DNA has managed to weasel it’s way into virtually all the coyotes east of the great plains.

If a Future scientist who did not know this looked at the diversity in the genome of the Coyote would he be able to see that much of it comes from hybridization or would he assume that it was there in the founding population of the species.

If the genome of the wolf was unavailable to study how would you know how large the original population of coyotes had to be?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 27, 2012 @ 7:59 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 27th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Hey all,

I've been doing a little research and came across this

from here

quote:

In Africa, without well-preserved bones to pull ancient DNA from, Tishkoff, Lachance, and their colleagues relied upon the modern DNA that they sequenced and a model of the population that produced it. Essentially, a small group—the Hadza, for instance, have about 1,000 members—should have a limited amount of DNA diversity. But if they have an unusually large number of DNA variants in a particular stretch of their genome, it indicates an influx of genes from elsewhere. And if those variants are not found in other typical modern genomes, it indicates the source was another archaic group.

end quote;

It seems that a small founding population with hybridization can mimic a larger one. It's possible that Adam and eve were alone after all.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 27, 2012 @ 9:01 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
December 13th, 2012 at 1:12 am
REBOOT! REBOOT! REBOOT! REBOOT! REBOOT!

Comment by GringoRoyale — December 13, 2012 @ 1:12 am

Daniel Smith Says:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
If you have an hour, and don't mind boring lectures on climate science in broken English, then I'd recommend this:

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt: Global Warming – Second Thoughts Of An Environmentalist 2012 Annual GWPF Lecture, The Royal Society 13 June

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 15, 2012 @ 4:24 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
December 21st, 2012 at 10:29 pm
For AIguy:

Minds, Machines and Gödel

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 21, 2012 @ 10:29 pm

MikeGene Says:
December 22nd, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Richard Dawkins exposed as a charlatan

Comment by MikeGene — December 22, 2012 @ 2:40 pm

Eugen Says:
December 23rd, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Thanks Mike Gene, we know he is a charlatan together with Coyne and Krauss.

AOFM are you still around?

Comment by Eugen — December 23, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Yep Eugen, I'm still here, but I just don't visit very often.

Merry Christmas to you and the rest of the crew.

Comment by angryoldfatman — December 25, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

Eugen Says:
December 26th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Thanks AOFM

same to you and everybody else here.

Comment by Eugen — December 26, 2012 @ 10:03 am

KC Says:
December 31st, 2012 at 9:21 am
RIP Carl Woese, 1928-2012.

http://www.news-gazette.com/ne...

Comment by KC — December 31, 2012 @ 9:21 am

GringoRoyale Says:
December 31st, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Rest in Peace, Carl.

God bless.

Comment by GringoRoyale — December 31, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 10th, 2013 at 6:17 am
RIP, Carl.

Nice guy. Had an extremely low opinion of Darwinism, you know.

Comment by nullasalus — January 10, 2013 @ 6:17 am

olegt Says:
January 10th, 2013 at 9:41 pm
null:

Nice guy. Had an extremely low opinion of Darwinism, you know.

Hardly. He referred to Darwinian evolution as "the classical view," in the same sense as Einstein and the fathers of quantum physics referred to "classical physics." Neither group had a "low opinion" of the classical theories, which had been already well tested before these guys showed up. They discovered that the old theories were not always valid. They worked in some limits and did not work in others.

The new theories (quantum and relativistic physics; communal evolution) agree with the old theories in the appropriate limits. At low speeds, relativity agrees with Newtonian mechanics. Woese's primitive cells, initially exchanging genes primarily through horizontal transfer, eventually crossed the Darwinian threshold, after which they passed on genes primarily from ancestors to descendants. After this transition, evolution becomes Darwinian. So both classical physics and Darwinian evolution remain part of today's science. Neither has been discarded.

Don't take my word, read Woese's own writings.

C. R. Woese, "A new biology for a new century," Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 68, 173 (2004). doi:10.1128/MMBR.68.2.173-186.2004

C. R. Woese, "On the evolution of cells," Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99, 8742 (2002). doi:10.1073/pnas.132266999

Comment by olegt — January 10, 2013 @ 9:41 pm

chunkdz Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 11:49 am
Woese's last words to Susan Mazur, 10/04/2012 –

Mazur: "Do you have any closing thoughts?"

Woese: "Yes, I do not like people saying that atheism is based on science, because it's not. It's an alien invasion of science."

Comment by chunkdz — January 12, 2013 @ 11:49 am

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Don't take my word, read Woese's own writings.

Olegt, I did better. I emailed Carl Woese personally, about a largely unrelated question a few years ago – mostly about HGT and how it relates to Darwinism. He utterly trashed Darwinism, so much so that I actually had to ask him a followup to clarify, because I was shocked. I do not say what I do lightly.

I still have the emails – I'm looking at them in another tab as I write this. His view of Darwinism was tremendously low, unless something changed drastically between 2009 and now.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 4:57 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Oh, wow, null has a stash of Carl Woese's private letters, in which the old man recants and swears off Darwinism!

That's 30 points on the Crackpot Scale. See #29.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 8:51 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Oh, wow, null has a stash of Carl Woese's private letters, in which the old man recants and swears off Darwinism!

I wrote him an email, he replied, and frankly I didn't even have to prompt him over this. Crackpot scale 29 doesn't really apply when you get firsthand evidence. And I repeat: I did not have to prompt him to do this. I was asking him a basically unrelated question, and he of his own accord dumped on Darwinism.

Tell me, olegt – are you calling me a liar? That I did not correspond (briefly, over 2-3 emails) with Woese, or that he did not say what I claim him to have said?

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 9:18 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 9:26 pm
By the way – I love how at no point, neither after my original comment nor after my followup, do you ever ask me what information I used to support what I said. When I explain exactly why I said what I did, you don't even want to know about the content of the emails. You immediately jump to mockery, doubt and disdain.

Let me guess: this is how science is done, right?

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 9:26 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 9:46 pm
I kid, I kid, null. Because I love.

I am calling you a crackpot, not a liar, so climb off that high horse. I think that you do not quite understand Woese's attitude towards ~~Darwinism~~ ~~Neo-Darwinism~~ modern synthesis. I don't have access to your email exchange with Woese, but I have a pretty good idea what his view was ca. 2009. Woese expressed it in a commentary article coauthored with physicist Nigel Goldenfeld [1]. Here is a key excerpt:

What makes the treatment of evolution by biologists of the last century insufferable scientifically is not the modern synthesis per se. Rather, it is the fact that molecular biology accepted the synthesis as a complete theory unquestioningly—thereby giving the impression that evolution was essentially a solved scientific problem with its roots lying only within the molecular paradigm.

There you have it. Woese has nothing against Darwinian evolution per se. He just insists, correctly, that it is not the whole story. But that is precisely what I wrote in my comment above.

I wrote that Darwinian evolution is akin to classical physics. Both are right in their domains of validity, but they need non-classical extensions outside of those domains. Quantum mechanics and relativity in one case, communal evolution in the other. But quantum mechanics does not contradict classical mechanics: they agree in the region where both are applicable. Likewise, communal evolution does not disprove Darwinian evolution. The former turns into the latter as organisms become more sophisticated.

Read the Woese–Goldenfeld article. Incidentally, they note the exact same parallel between biology and physics. But just like the arrival of quantum physics did not send classical physics into the dustbin of history, communal evolution does not negate Darwinian. Woese, in his own words, says so.

So yes, I think that you misunderstand the point of Woese's criticisms. And that your misunderstanding has crackpottish roots. But nothing personal here.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 9:46 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Here is the article info:
[1] C. R. Woese and N. Goldenfeld, "How the microbial world saved evolution from the Scylla of molecular biology and the Charybdis of the modern synthesis," Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 73, 14 (2009). doi:10.1128/MMBR.00002-09.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 9:51 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:00 pm
I kid, I kid, null.

Oh, come on, olegt. Here you were, making the bold claims – but now you're pussing out. Disappointing. Does it really take a few clarifying questions to knock you off your game?

Let me repeat the situation here. I have Woese's own words in direct correspondence. This you apparently don't doubt – you won't go for the liar charge. I say Woese, explicitly, dumps on Darwinism.

You go yet another round without asking me what he says, and instead do some tea-leaf reading of his statements and spinning. You say I misunderstand Woese and that I'm a crackpot, but here's the great thing: you don't know what the contents of the emails are. So you have no idea just what I'm supposedly misunderstanding.

But, you actlike you know for a fact that I misunderstood Woese. And you're certain that the emails I have from him support your take of his views, and do not support mine. Better yet, sight unseen, you're certain of this.

But nothing personal here.

Once again, this pussing out on your part is disappointing.

I'll gladly make it personal: I think your attitude so far in this thread helps illustrate that you're a poor thinker in general, and that you can't handle criticisms of theories you're emotionally invested in in an unbiased way. I'm not sure it gets more personal than that for a scientist.

So answer me a couple questions, olegt.

First, would you like me to paste the contents of these emails?

Second, don't you think a proper approach to this question would have been to ask me, 'Null, what did Woese say that makes you think he has the view you attribute to him.'?

Oh, and if you do want me to paste them – once it's established that he did, in fact, dump on Darwinism and thought poorly of it, can I expect an apology on your part and a statement that you were off your rocker here, failing to approach the topic without bias? Remember, I'm making this personal – and a concession like that from you would be pretty fun as far as petty blog-comments achievements go.

Please don't disappoint me further.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Here is the article info:

Oh my, that 2009 article. Guess which article I was corresponding with him ove?

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:03 pm
null,

We know each other long enough, so there is no point in pouting and looking offended. Skip to the chase.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:03 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:07 pm
We know each other long enough, so there is no point in pouting and looking offended. Skip to the chase.

Pouting? Looking offended? C'mon, olegt. I'm giving you rope to hang yourself with. But, once again, you're disappointing me. I should have known better than to expect much of you.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:07 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:10 pm
What I emailed Woese (link to his paper not included, since that doesn't really copy-paste)

Greetings, Prof. Woese,

I was reading "How the Microbial World Saved Evolution from the Scylla of Molecular Biology and the Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis" and this part stood out to me in particular:

"The power of horizontal gene transfer is so great that it is a major puzzle to understand why it would be that the eukaryotic world would turn its back on such a wonderful source of genetic novelty and innovation. The exciting answer, bursting through decades of dogmatic prejudice, is that it hasn’t. There are now compelling documentations of horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes, not only in plants, protists, and fungi, but in animals (including mammals) as well."

What I'm really curious of is, does this mean that you see HGT as a major force in evolution above the bacterial level (in plants, fungi, insects, animals, etc)? Or am I somehow misreading you here?

Also, you (and Nigel as well) say in the paper that a large part of the problem is that the discussion was "ideological, not scientific". I'd ask, why was ideology in play at all? Was it just a simple case of "Well, this is what we were taught, and therefore that is now the orthodoxy"? Something more philosophical? Something else?

Anyway, thanks for writing such an interesting paper. I'm obviously an amateur at biology, but the very idea of HGT seems interesting to me.

Woese's first response. Keeping his original formatting, not sure why it is the way it is, but here's the copy-paste.

One needs to keep open the roles of HGT in multicellular organisms
The cases now are relatively few, but is this the tip of some iceberg ?

Darwin's "Origin" was set up to be not only a compendium of facts and
some superficial interpretations thereof (most if not all know to Lamarck
and Darwin's own grandfather 50 years or more before Origin –
but with this silly strawman "Theory of Creation" Darwin was clearly
talking to the secularists in the society of his time (and later);
thus making "Origin" both an invitation to science and an
invitation to secular ideology.
Evolution, with its trivial explanation (natural selection) — actually
not an explanation but an explaining away (a guesswork solution) –
was of no concern to molecular biology of the 20th century;
the discipline denied the reality of emergent phenomena (which
today physicists know well) and spoke of evolution as nothing
but "historical accident" — having no bearing on a fundamental
understanding of biology.
Only the new-Darwinians were left to attend the evolutionary
side of biology in the 20th century. And in their hands
nothing fundamental happened during the entire century.
Evolution's foundation remained the nostrum
"natural selection" from the beginning to the end of
that century.
The Darwinians had, in my opinion, pulled of the
greatest and most devastating bait and switch
in history of science — from evolution as a
scientific concern, to evolution as aa secular weapon.

Now, there's more than this.

But what do you think so far, olegt? Does this support my view, or yours?

Please say yours. I want it on record, even on this blog, just how much self-delusion you can engage in when push comes to shove.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:10 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:15 pm
null,

I have made my case for what Woese thinks of Dariwnian evolution.

I have quoted his articles from 2002 and 2004. I have made a parallel with physics explaining why a new theory does not necessarily replace an old one, but may (and often does) coexist with it. I have quoted from Woese's 2009 article, where he explicitly states that he has no problem with modern synthesis per se. I have explained again how that works, both in physics and in biology. I have pointed out that Woese himself made the same parallel between biology and physics. The case is pretty clear.

All you do is keep saying "Oh, I have Woese's personal emails and they totally prove you wrong." Oh well. I suppose that's very convincing.

You want to make an argument? Make an argument. Or GTFO.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:15 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:20 pm
I have made my case for what Woese thinks of Dariwnian evolution.

You sure have. To make your case you've engaged in tea-leaf reading, spinning, mockery and disdain.

All I have on my side is, you know. Carl Woese's actual comments to me, preserved perfectly.

I've now supplied the first reply from him, in full. C'mon, olegt. Spin it. Because there's more, and if I'm going to make you eat crow, I want to get the beak count up as high as possible.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:20 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Then go ahead and paste all of it.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:22 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
There was no tea-leaf reading. I have supplied a direct quote in which Woese says that he has no problem with modern synthesis per se.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Then go ahead and paste all of it.

Oh Lord, what fun would that be? Are you in a rush or something?

C'mon, man. Here you are calling me out, telling me to give up some evidence. I give you a paste like that and you have nothing to say?

I asked you: does what I've shown so far support my statements, or yours? Can I expect an answer out of you? I mean, you cannot possibly be hoping that it's going to get *better* for you as I keep on pasting, right?

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:25 pm
Go ahead, make my day.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:25 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:26 pm
I'll take that as 'I'm not going to answer your questions, null. I look bad already. Being honest would make your day. But I can't possibly bullshit here and make it at all look good. So I better hope and pray Woese backs off in the additional comments.'

Again, disappointing. To be fair, you're good at that.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:26 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:30 pm
So, no further emails? Yawn. You crackpots are boring.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:30 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Woese actually followed up after that before I mailed back.

If I replied to your email I cannot find my reply.
If you have such, would you send me a copy?

Thanks,

CRW

So, I replied.

By the way, let me explain my reply. I was pretty floored. I mean, I did not expect Woese to say what he did. I thought he'd talk about the Max Planck kind of general habit of scientists being stuck in their ways. Dumping on Darwinism? I don't know much, but I know Woese isn't exactly a small name in these topics. So, my reply was to give him what he asked for, and also clarify. (Not sure why he wanted his copy.)

Thanks for the reply, professor! Your entire message is quoted below.

Do you think HGT is the only big issue left ignored/unturned as far as evolutionary theory goes? I know it's a major topic, but what about, say.. epigenetics, or other possibilities? And if there are any that come to mind, what would they be? (It'd be more for me to read up on. Lynn Margulis' views is another I'm trying to read up on.)

And, I want to better understand what you're saying re: Darwin and Neo-Darwinists. It's not that Darwin got anything fundamentally wrong, is it? More that (and maybe I'm misreading you here) as far as evolution goes, it's become far too valuable as part of a "secular" ideology, so that big questions (Maybe we're missing something big? Maybe we don't understand development enough? etc) are discouraged, since a major point of that secular value was "we already know almost everything there is to know about the fundamentals of evolution" and acknowledging that there are big looming questions and that some fundamentals are not understood (or even aren't what we thought they were!) would threaten that?

And thanks again for the reply. It's all fascinating to me.

Anyone reading this could probably understand why I'd really want to make sure I understood Woese. I mean, it was a hell of a thing he was saying to me.

Woese replied (again, leaving his formatting in, etc):

Darwin's "theory" is what Schrodinger called a "guesswork solution".
Physicists are known to say of such things "It isn't even wrong!".
Descent with modification merely describes a phenomenon, the direct facts.
Survival of the Fittest is again a statement of the facts.
"Natural Selection", as Wallace told Darwin simply a metaphorical,
anthropomorphic and confusing was of saying "survival of the fittest".
So, where's the "theory" that's supposed to be so great.
It's simply secularist sociological ideology. No real science to it.

CRW

epigenetics is, as you suggest, very important

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:32 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:32 pm
So, no further emails? Yawn. You crackpots are boring.

Me or Carl Woese?

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:32 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:37 pm
That completes the correspondence.

Alright, olegt. What will it be? Sputtering and a few more insults, but a refusal to acknowledge what Woese said – and how it supports my pretty meager claim (that Woese had a low opinion of Darwinism)?

Maybe it's time for you to get desperate and call me a liar, and say this correspondence never happened.

Really, take your pick. It's going to be fun no matter which way you twist here.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 10:37 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:51 pm
I dunno, null. The emails seem to contradict Woese's own writings. In the 2004 MMBR paper he wrote this:

Despite the fact that historians may well declare the 20th to be “the great century” in biology (24), it was in the 19th century that biology really came of age; consolidating itself, ridding itself of much of its ancient burden of mystical claptrap, and defining the great biological problems: Pasteur had banished spontaneous generation for good. He, along with Koch, Haeckel, Cohn, Beijerinck, and others, had shown the living world to comprise far more than plants and animals. Darwin had demystified evolution and recast it scientifically. The cell had emerged as the basic unit of biology.

In the 2002 PNAS paper he talked about a transition from communal to Darwinian evolution:

The Darwinian Threshold. The degree of connectedness of the componentry of the cell has profound evolutionary implications. If a cell was simple and highly modular in organization, HGT would play a stronger role in its evolution than otherwise (15, 21). Indeed, were that organization simple and modular enough, all of the componentry of a cell could potentially be horizontally displaceable over time. The organismal genealogical record would be ephemeral; no stable record could exist. Suppose that the primitive ancestors of modern cells were of this nature. That would mean that at its beginning, cellular evolution would have been driven in the main by HGT (1, 21).

In its subsequent evolution a primitive cell of this type would become ever more complex, idiosyncratically connected, and thereby increasingly refractory to horizontal gene acquisition, especially the more spectacular forms of it (21). In other words, there would come a stage in the evolution of cellular organization where the organismal genealogical trace (recorded in common histories of the genes of an organism) goes from being completely ephemeral to being increasingly permanent (21). This point in evolution, this transition, is appropriately call the “Darwinian Threshold.” On the far side of that Threshold “species” as we know them cannot exist. Once it is crossed, however, speciation becomes possible (21). The Darwinian Threshold truly represents the Origin of Species, in that it represents the origin of speciation as we know it.

I am not sure how one can square these.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:51 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:54 pm
null,

I have not called you a liar—ever—and we have known each other for a while. I do call you a crackpot from time to time, though.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:54 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 10:59 pm
null,

I am happy to say that in your email exchange Woese does take a dump on Darwin's theory. I am happy to say that I was wrong. If you are never wrong then you never learn anything new.

As always, new answers generate new questions. Why do Woese's articles seem to contradict his emails? I am curious to hear what you think.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 10:59 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 11:10 pm
I am happy to say that in your email exchange Woese does take a dump on Darwin's theory. I am happy to say that I was wrong. If you are never wrong then you never learn anything new.

The real lesson here to learn is about bias and how to approach a statement that takes you off-guard. This whole conversation could have remained perfectly civil if you just asked me why I said what I did.

Why do Woese's articles seem to contradict his emails? I am curious to hear what you think.

How should I know? I'm not even convinced they do. Either way, articles in 2002 and 2004 versus his 2009 article and a 2009 correspondence. Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe that pressure against criticizing Darwinism, or at least mainstream evolutionary theory, that ID proponents go on about is true. Maybe I caught him when he was unusually frank. Maybe a million things. Frankly, I send a fair number of emails out to well-known academics and the like when the mood strikes. When they reply (surprising how often they do), they typically speak with a manner that never comes across in their public image. You should see what Jerry Coyne thinks of most reviews of his book.

Either way, there you have it.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 11:10 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Jerry Coyne

Fodor, not Coyne. Ugh.

Comment by nullasalus — January 12, 2013 @ 11:11 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 11:17 pm
Perfectly civil? You and I, teacups and pinkies? That would be so gay.

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 11:17 pm

olegt Says:
January 12th, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Let me summarize where things stand after the smoke has cleared. See if you agree with my characterization.

1. There is solid evidence that Woese's big picture of evolution included both stages, communal and Darwinian. See the papers. His favorite mode of horizontal gene propagation is largely irrelevant in today's world, and he knew it.

2. From the emails one gets the sense that Woese did not think highly of Darwin's original theory and its modern counterpart, the modern synthesis. In his view, it was too phenomenological (2009 MMBR) and he wanted a mechanism:

As for evolution, it had been developed from a phenomenological description centering around what was generally termed natural selection into the modern evolutionary synthesis through its union with Mendelian genetics. The modern evolutionary synthesis should have been the 20th century's evolutionary bastion, the forefront of research into the evolutionary process. No such luck!

Comment by olegt — January 12, 2013 @ 11:28 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 3:25 am
His favorite mode of horizontal gene propagation is largely irrelevant in today's world, and he knew it.

Actually, he didn't know that. He thought what we know may be the 'tip of the iceberg'.

Let me summarize where things stand after the smoke has cleared. See if you agree with my characterization.

Here's the real interesting summary.

I made a passing remark. You didn't ask me to justify it, but attacked blindly. I made it clear I had some directly relevant information here – you didn't even ask for it, and said I was a crackpot. I produced it, and without being halfway done – even while, really, what I did have blew your claims away – you kept at the crackpot charge. Now, in the middle there I was taunting the hell out of you, because you were egging me on and acting like I was bluffing, and I knew better.

But after all the dust has settled and, yeah, there's no way to spin Woese's response against what I said.. let's play nice and try creative reading and theorizing to make Woese's criticism seem as benign as possible to the mainstream theory?

Not interested: cope with it yourself. Woese said flatly to me that he thought Darwin's theory was not just bunk, but socio-ideologically motivated bunk. That's the real interesting part: not just the failings in his view, but why people were papering over those failings, and what he saw as the point of the theory. Call Woese right or wrong, but as far as the task of papering over the damage goes, do it without my help.

Comment by nullasalus — January 13, 2013 @ 3:25 am

olegt Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 10:14 am
And I thought this was the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

But I guess we have irreconcilable differences. I am interested in the state of science. You are interested in tabloid stories. To each his own, I guess.

Comment by olegt — January 13, 2013 @ 10:14 am

angryoldfatman Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
olegt wrote:

I have not called you a liar—ever—and we have known each other for a while. I do call you a crackpot from time to time, though.

Explain the difference(s) between liars and crackpots. How can you be a crackpot without lying?

The word "crackpot" implies the person so labeled makes wrong statements (i.e., untrue statements, i.e., lies) because of some sort of cognitive malfunction or irrational belief.

That's why it's an offensive term and you enjoy using it so much. It eliminates the need for you to seriously address anything the so-called crackpot states, and usually has the added bonus of provoking him or her to anger, thereby making the tactic even more effective.

Very shrewd. Not creative, but shrewd.

I am interested in the state of science. You are interested in tabloid stories. To each his own, I guess.

The state of science is what scientists say it is. Otherwise, it's not really science, is it?

Granted, Woese was just one scientist, and one scientist's opinion of the state of science is a drop in the bucket. But his was a pretty big drop, while politicians, tabloid reporters, or blog flunkies aren't even drops.

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 13, 2013 @ 2:35 pm

nullasalus Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 4:14 pm
The funny thing is, I didn't even advance a theory here, but out came the crackpot charge anyway. I didn't say 'See, Darwinism is wrong because Woese!' or anything. I simply said hey, RIP, nice guy, he didn't like Darwinism.

But wow, that was more than enough to trigger a frantic response from the guy who's "very interested in the state of science". Crackpot charges, insinuations, etc.

Why, it's almost as if his real concern wasn't science, but secularist sociological ideology.

Comment by nullasalus — January 13, 2013 @ 4:14 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
But nullasalus, we are the ones who are irrational and driven purely by emotion, given to unthinking kneejerk reactions whenever certain subjects are broached.

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 13, 2013 @ 7:51 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Is anybody else getting these wacky "Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare()" error messages? I'm going to see if this is happening only in IE8.

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 13, 2013 @ 7:53 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 7:57 pm
OK it's happening in Chrome too, but only when I'm logged in. When I log out and view the page, it's perfectly fine.

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 13, 2013 @ 7:57 pm

olegt Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 9:56 pm
Angryoldfatman,

You bring up a good point. You can learn about science by listening to what scientists say. Listening to the opinion of one just one scientist, no matter how distinguished, gives you a distorted picture of science. Examples of such distort ions are well known.

Einstein famously disliked the Copenhagen formulation of quantum mechanics. He even came up with a paradox formulated to expose the absurdity of the Copenhagen theory. (That would be the EPR paradox.) And yet Einstein was wrong in this instance and Bohr was right. Nature does operate in the strange way the Copenhagen theory predicts.

Another famous example would be Fred Hoyle, the famous astrophysicist who ridiculed the Big Bang theory. He died without accepting it. Clearly asking Hoyle about the Big Bang would produce a juicy sound byte, but it would not produce a good snapshot of cosmology.

So yes, by all means, ask scientists about the state of science. It is great that null wrote to Woese to find out about his views. He got a juicy sound byte, but that sound byte does not reflect the state of the field.

Woese's own writings indicate that he is well aware of the applicability of classical, Darwinian evolution through natural selection past the point he called the Darwinian threshold. This is how science works, not just in biology, but in other areas as well. There is an old, well-tested theory that everyone believes to be universally applicable. Newtonian mechanics was one example, evolution through natural selection another. Then scientists discover phenomena that do not fit within the old framework. A new theory arises to describe the new phenomena. Crucially, the new theory does not dethrone the old one! As a rule, the two theory peacefully coexist, agreeing in the area where both are applicable. Quantum mechanics turns into classical on the macroscopic scale. Relativity turns into Newtonian physics at low speeds. Communal evolution changes into Darwinian as cells get more isolated.

The reason I find the local inhabitants to be crackpottish is that they tend to discard 99 percent of the scientific opinion and focus on the 1 percent of dissent. Suzan Mazur is viewed as a serious journalist. Woese's dislike of the phenomenological nature of natural selection is taken as a fatal flaw in theory of evolution. Misguided musings of philosophers like Fodor are cheered on merely because they happen to resonate with your own dislike of evolution. Well, whatever rocks your boat. By all means read what scientists say, but if you pick and choose what to hear, don't be surprised if you get a distorted picture of science.

Comment by olegt — January 13, 2013 @ 9:56 pm

olegt Says:
January 13th, 2013 at 10:00 pm
I might add that there is a different between liars and crackpots that you seem to have ignored. The former give false information knowing that it is false. The latter believe in the false statements they make. How they misinformed is another question, partly covered in my previous comment.

Comment by olegt — January 13, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 14th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
olegt wrote:

I might add that there is a different between liars and crackpots that you seem to have ignored. The former give false information knowing that it is false. The latter believe in the false statements they make. How they misinformed is another question, partly covered in my previous comment.

The word "crackpot" implies the person so labeled makes wrong statements (i.e., untrue statements, i.e., lies) because of some sort of cognitive malfunction or irrational belief.

It is the "insane" portion of the Dawkins hat trick. The knowing liar falls under Dawkins' "wicked" category, a category he didn't wish to consider. For what reason, who can say? It may be related to his "dangerous idea" of us being nothing more than meat robots, or it may not. I have no idea. He is just one scientist (or former scientist?).

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 14, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
January 15th, 2013 at 2:19 pm
All of this establishing definitions simply because, Oleg, you jumped the gun with Nulla?

Comment by GringoRoyale — January 15, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 27th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Complete change of direction here.

Who runs/owns Telic Thoughts now? I don't think Guts will be doing any more stuff here, having turned atheist in the past few months.

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 27, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

Guts Says:
January 28th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
I'm still maintaining TT, I may be a skeptic now but I'm not an arsehole.

Comment by Guts — January 28, 2013 @ 6:58 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 28th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Thanks Guts. I never meant to imply that, apologies if that came off wrong. I just didn't know who was in charge and/or how interested you'd be in keeping the site going given your new viewpoint.

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 28, 2013 @ 10:08 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 28th, 2013 at 10:09 pm
BTW, thanks for fixing the comments!

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 28, 2013 @ 10:09 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
January 29th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
So Guts, if you don't mind my asking, what caused the change of heart?

Comment by Daniel Smith — January 29, 2013 @ 7:58 pm

Guts Says:
January 29th, 2013 at 8:44 pm
It was not just one thing. It's a lot of things piling up in my mind, but I think Newtown had a profound effect on me.

Comment by Guts — January 29, 2013 @ 8:44 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
January 29th, 2013 at 9:08 pm
"How could God allow such evil?"

Was that it?

Comment by Daniel Smith — January 29, 2013 @ 9:08 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 29th, 2013 at 11:05 pm
It's difficult to know what to say here.

Unlike the run-of-the-mill atheists I've encountered online, I know that Guts didn't reach this conclusion because of silly teenage angst. There's a lot of water under the bridge for a recital of the "problem of evil" talking points to have any effect on anybody's viewpoint.

If the conclusion took a number of years and experiences to form, it's not likely to be undone in a few day's worth of shallow banter. And, God knows, a belief that can be undone in a few days isn't much of a belief, is it?

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 29, 2013 @ 11:05 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
January 29th, 2013 at 11:12 pm
Clarification: the "silly teenage angst" thing I mentioned wasn't anything about Newtown; it has to do when you ask the usual suspects at what age they stopped believing in God, which usually winds up being between the ages of 9 and 13. It's a common age to learn that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or when their parents' marriage ends in bitter divorce.

Comment by angryoldfatman — January 29, 2013 @ 11:12 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
January 31st, 2013 at 7:41 pm
There's a lot of water under the bridge for a recital of the "problem of evil" talking points to have any effect on anybody's viewpoint.

I know. The "problem of evil" is just such a bad argument for atheism… I sincerely hope it was a lot more than that.

Comment by Daniel Smith — January 31, 2013 @ 7:41 pm

Guts Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:09 am
Well I explicitly said it was not the only thing, but I'll bite. Why do you think the problem of evil is a bad argument?

Comment by Guts — February 2, 2013 @ 12:09 am

Daniel Smith Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Without getting too deep I'll just say that the "problem" of evil been answered by the great thinkers of Christianity. People like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Augustine, etc. wrote extensively about good and evil – what they are, what they mean, how it all relates to God. These things have been worked out in minute detail.

See Aquinas' Summa Theologica or Contra Gentiles for example.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 2, 2013 @ 12:20 pm

Guts Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Heh, you'd think for such a horrible argument, one would be able to demolish it in a couple of paragraphs.

Comment by Guts — February 2, 2013 @ 12:32 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:41 pm
OK…

The argument says "if God is good how can he allow evil to exist?"

I'll do my best to "demolish it".

First premise: God exists.

The God of classical theism is proven to exist as a necessary being. He is also proven to be one – not many. I will not get into this any farther because it is assumed (given for the sake of argument).

Second premise: God is good.

The metaphysical/theological definition of the God of classical theism defines God as "good". It's not just that God is good though, it's that there is nothing "not good" in God. He is perfection – the defining essence of good.

Third premise: Evil exists.

Evil is defined in classical theism as a privation – the absence of good. Hence, evil is a corruption, a distortion, a perversion of that which is good.

Conclusion: A good God must allow evil in order for anything else to exist.

If God is the ultimate good (perfection) then no other perfect being exists – else there would be more than one God (and there is only one God). Thus everything else that exists is "less than good" (imperfect). As Jesus said "No one is good save God alone". For this reason, God must allow evil to exist IF he is going to allow anything besides himself to exist.

So the "problem of evil" is no problem – in fact it is a necessary condition of our existence.

That is just one of the arguments against the problem of evil from one theological perspective (my own). Aquinas goes into these things in far more detail. The point being that for theologians well-versed in classical theism the "problem of evil" is on par with the "what caused God" argument – a non-starter.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 2, 2013 @ 2:41 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:49 pm
First premise: God exists.

The God of classical theism is proven to exist as a necessary being. He is also proven to be one – not many. I will not get into this any farther because it is assumed (given for the sake of argument).

I'm not happy with the way I worded that. Let me rephrase:

First premise: God

I will be arguing using the definition of "God" from classical theism. God is defined by classical theism as a necessary being. God is also defined as "necessarily one" in classical theism.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 2, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

Eugen Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Very nice, Daniel Smith. It's getting interesting.

Comment by Eugen — February 2, 2013 @ 3:05 pm

Eugen Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Just look at him.

Guts, how can this face turn you away from God?

Comment by Eugen — February 2, 2013 @ 3:07 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Daniel's summation of the classical argument works well as long we're talking about humans doing evil things. Which of course describes the Newtown situation perfectly.

Here comes the part that troubles me to discuss. I know some things about Guts that might be better kept under wraps.

I don't know if Newtown was the trigger for Guts's "deconversion" (or whatever you call it), but I do think that it was slowly building from political and personal motivations.

That said, I truly admire many of Guts's accomplishments. I don't know if I could be as brave or as strong as Guts has been, and I know I'll never be as smart, even though I'm much older.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 2, 2013 @ 5:15 pm

Guts Says:
February 2nd, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Thanks AOFM I'm still a big fan because a stain I am. I was expecting the free will defense, but never heard the assertion made before that people shoot little kids because God exists (and allows others to exist, although this oddly won't be a problem in Heaven). Maybe we should form a hunting party and kill the bastard.

Comment by Guts — February 2, 2013 @ 7:16 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 3rd, 2013 at 12:11 am
OK, we'll talk about Newtown and its theological implications (if there are any).

The free will defense is still pretty valid IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The classical argument summarized by Daniel (if I understand it correctly in my poor layman's perspective) hinges on the same premise.

God created the universe, so God is at least partially separated from the universe.

The universe is imperfect, because the only perfect entity is God, and separation from God allows imperfection which ultimately leads to sin (error) and (in the case of intelligent beings in said universe) evil.

God could destroy all evil in the next picosecond, if He so wanted, but that would involve destroying everything that was imperfect. That would mean the universe would be obliterated, along with you and me and every other thing we consider to be good. That's an unacceptable solution to evil.

Then there is the atheist view. There is no God, no afterlife, nobody and nothing is perfect, and mankind is a relative flash-in-the-pan in an uncaring, unjust, unfair, inconsiderate, deaf, dumb, and blind uncreated universe. We are forgettable motes of dust; our species is a cosmic dustbunny doomed to extinction as our universe obliterates itself.

Everything that we consider evil or good doesn't matter at all. Nobody's keeping score. Just do what feels good, because that's all you have, and soon you won't even have that. It makes no difference if you hug 20 children or shoot them, if either of them makes you feel good. Just do it. They're all going to die eventually anyway, and given enough time everything will be forgotten, both hugs and bullets.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 3, 2013 @ 12:11 am

Guts Says:
February 3rd, 2013 at 12:57 am
Let me try to communicate my disagreement without the snark in order to avoid the double downing effect.

You linked to a video defending the free will defense (which I haven't watched yet but I will) but since you decided to keep going with Daniel's argument I will stick with that for now. So, I am assuming that you, like Daniel, are a Christian that believes in some future time lions will lay down with lambs, cats and dogs living together, no more tears, no more murders, etc.

In other words, that God exists, other people will exist, and evil will no longer be a factor. So it is not out of necessity for evil to exist, just because God exists.

I concede that the argument you and Daniel are making makes your worldview at least consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about "mere evil" existing if God indeed exists. In other words, Adam and Eve could have never eaten the apple and continued to obey God. But the mere fact that the potential is there for them to disobey doesn't rule out the existence of god. But thats all you have proven, you haven't answered the question that the problem of evil poses, namely, why doesn't God prevent atrocious evil like 9/11 or newtown?

Comment by Guts — February 3, 2013 @ 12:57 am

Daniel Smith Says:
February 3rd, 2013 at 1:10 pm
why doesn't God prevent atrocious evil like 9/11 or Newton?

To answer this, one must understand what God is, what life is, what the soul is, what judgment is, what eternity is, and a number of other things. In short, one must know what Christianity teaches.

To expect God to intervene in the natural world to "prevent atrocious evil" is to anthropomorphisize God and expect Him to work miracles on behalf of what WE view as important – (ie, the preservation of physical human bodies).

The Christian faith is based on the view, taught explicitly by Jesus Christ and all the Apostles, that we are all spiritual beings who continue on after the death of the body and that this physical life we live in this world is just the beginning – "a wisp, a vapor, here for a moment then gone".

This means that our fixation on physical human bodies and this earthly life is misplaced. We are put on this earth to prepare us for eternal life.

So – newsflash – WE ALL DIE.

So why do the good die young and some evil bastards live to a ripe old age?

Well, my opinion is that this is the mercy of God. Those evil bastards will never have anything better than this life they have now. Once they die, and are judged, they will spend an eternity far removed from God (and all that is good). This life IS their reward (while it lasts). This is the best they'll ever know. So God, in his mercy, gives them a little more time before sentencing them to an eternity apart from his goodness.

So Christianity teaches that there will be ultimate justice. That those innocents (like the Newtown children) will live forever close to God (and his goodness) while those who do atrocious evil will live far from God (and everything that is good) for rejecting God is rejecting everything that is good (since all goodness comes from God). It's not that God chooses to send people to hell – it's that they choose to reject him and his goodness. So he gives them what THEY choose. That's the crux of the whole heaven and hell thing.

There's a lot more that can be said, but you can see that evil – even atrocious evil – is not inconsistent with a good God or the basics of Christianity. It might be inconsistent with a "Santa Claus God" or some other anthropomorphisized strawman version put forth, but not with the God of Christianity.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 3, 2013 @ 1:10 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 3rd, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Guts wrote:

Let me try to communicate my disagreement without the snark in order to avoid the double downing effect.

I'm not trolling or trying to be snarky, Guts. I appreciate the reciprocation.

If anything, I'm restraining myself, because I care about you and your feelings.

You linked to a video defending the free will defense (which I haven't watched yet but I will) but since you decided to keep going with Daniel's argument I will stick with that for now.

I only recommend the first half of the video. It's a sermon with a humorous illustration of what things would be like without free will. The rest of the video is more about Book of Revelation prophecy, which is irrelevant to our conversation and is an esoteric subject besides.

So, I am assuming that you, like Daniel, are a Christian that believes in some future time lions will lay down with lambs, cats and dogs living together, no more tears, no more murders, etc.

In a fashion, yes. I can't speak for Daniel; I can only support or reject his summary of the classical "problem of evil" (theodicy) argument.

Of course it's easier to imagine free-willed beings eschewing murder and infliction of suffering upon others than it is to explaining animals changing so drastically. The former seems to be the most important part of the Scriptures you're referencing.

The other verses in your reference, the mention of the animals, are not part of the same passage. I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest and say they aren't referring to an afterlife of some sort, but Isaiah is really waxing poetic in these verses, and it's difficult for me to differentiate between metaphorical and literal interpretation there. It would require more study in Hebrew and Biblical teachings than I've already put in to do it justice.

In other words, that God exists, other people will exist, and evil will no longer be a factor. So it is not out of necessity for evil to exist, just because God exists.

What is evil?

Is it merely pain and suffering caused by a human being, as Epicurus would have led us to believe? If so, taking heroin away from an addict is evil. Painlessly murdering orphans, judged by the same criterion, is not evil. As a matter of fact, giving a lethal injection to people in their sleep may be the least evil thing that a human being can do, since it doesn't cause suffering per se and it ends the possibility of all other suffering.

In other words, Adam and Eve could have never eaten the apple and continued to obey God. But the mere fact that the potential is there for them to disobey doesn't rule out the existence of god. But thats all you have proven, you haven't answered the question that the problem of evil poses, namely, why doesn't God prevent atrocious evil like 9/11 or newtown?

Was 9/11 or Newtown evil? How do you know there is any such thing as evil?

Let's assume 9/11 and Newtown were atrociously evil, whatever that means to you. Let's also assume you use a common criterion to judge this as evil, mainly an ancient rule (granted, a pre-Biblical one) that says "You shall not murder other human beings".

You want to know why God didn't prevent people from being murdered.

Well, possibly because then all murder would need to be stopped by divine intervention.

What's wrong with that, you ask?

If there are no consequences for actions, do we ever learn anything? Do we grow as free-willed beings if we never see the results of our errors?

I know it's almost a joke to say we learn anything anyway, but imagine how difficult that would be if we were invulnerable to every single bad result from our poor choices.

As far as any resemblance of my opinions to those held by Daniel, they're coincidental, since I have no formal education in any of this subject matter. I'm just an old computer guy who spends too much time reading junk on the Internet and may have attended Baptist Sunday school once in a while as a kid.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 3, 2013 @ 2:17 pm

Guts Says:
February 4th, 2013 at 12:11 am
Daniel, I sincerely hope that if an attacker breaks into your home and proceeds to do harm to your loved ones, that you would not cross your arms and do nothing because "we all die anyway" and "we're spiritual beings".

So it seems you both agree that some time in the future there will be a world where:

1. People have free will
2. There is no evil.
3. God exists.

AOFM, you seem to suggest that the reason God doesn't cut to the chase is that we won't learn anything if we don't see the consequences of evil actions. But it seems to me that we don't learn anything either way. People "sin" all the time regardless of the abundance of evil and the evident consequences of it's actions. Even if people "learn something from it", the fact of the matter is that people can change, sometimes even on a dime. Saints become monsters, and monsters become saints,and most of the time rebound into monsterism..

Also, according to Matthew 7, only very few of the people who ever lived will actually make it into Heaven. So that means the majority of the people were placed here to so that only a tiny few could learn the consequences of evil action. That to me is a huge sacrifice and morally reprehensible. There's gotta be a better way.

So it's not clear to me why God doesn't cut to the chase , or (even better) why he didn't start with this excellent possible world (1,2,3 above) in the first place.

Comment by Guts — February 4, 2013 @ 12:11 am

Heartlander Says:
February 4th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
FYI & FWIW:

…atheism isn't exempt from analysis or critique of its real world consequences. Atheism is a metaphysical stance — there are no gods and no God, there is no intrinsic purpose to existence, there is no natural moral law, there is no accountability in an afterlife. Those are quite explicit and consequential assertions, just as the negation of those assertions — that there is a God, that there is a purpose to existence… — is an explicit and consequential assertion. Atheism lacks liturgy. It does not lack beliefs and consequences. It lacks belief in God; it does not lack belief in the intrinsic consequences of God's non-existence. As Nietzsche emphatically noted, if God is dead, everything changes.
– Michael Egnor

Transcript of William Lane Craig’s Lecture:

The Absurdity of Life Without God

The Problem of Evil

Comment by Heartlander — February 4, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

nullasalus Says:
February 4th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Guts,

Daniel, I sincerely hope that if an attacker breaks into your home and proceeds to do harm to your loved ones, that you would not cross your arms and do nothing because "we all die anyway" and "we're spiritual beings".

Well, I'm sure Daniel would do something – fend them off, etc. But that seems like part of Daniel's point. Daniel's a person, I'm a person, we're all people, and we have certain natures, certain expectations of ourselves appropriate to those natures, etc. When it comes to God, it arguably doesn't make as much sense to think of God as 'just another person', or thinking of what He should do in terms of what we'd expect if each other if we were very, very powerful.

More about that below.

So it's not clear to me why God doesn't cut to the chase , or (even better) why he didn't start with this excellent possible world (1,2,3 above) in the first place.

For one thing, starting with the 'excellent possible world' would entail neither you, I, nor anyone you know or knew, ever existed. When we talk about God allowing evil, we're talking about something a lot broader than 'God allowing Newton or 9/11 to occur'. We're talking about God allowing the existence of beings who are in part evil, beings who have flaws, beings in need of redemption to begin with. That's a set that's going to include everyone at the end of the day.

So I guess I'd ask, do you think God is justified in allowing the existence of you yourself, or the people you know, despite their flaws? (I'm going to assume you agree that yes, you think those people are flawed, have done evil, however vastly more forgivable than some instances of it.) If so, you've got a good answer to why God doesn't start off with that excellent world.

Even if people "learn something from it", the fact of the matter is that people can change, sometimes even on a dime. Saints become monsters, and monsters become saints,and most of the time rebound into monsterism..

Sure. And some saints remain saints until they die, some monsters stay monsters rather consistently. Some people learn but don't become saints. Some monsters stay monsters, but become less so. I'm not sure where your criticism is on this front. You say people don't learn anything, but that doesn't seem right. Maybe not everyone does, maybe not everyone learns as much or as fast as we like.

Also, according to Matthew 7, only very few of the people who ever lived will actually make it into Heaven. So that means the majority of the people were placed here to so that only a tiny few could learn the consequences of evil action.

I think that interpretation of the narrow/wide gate passage is problematic to say the least. Also, I don't think AOFM was connecting 'learning' from 'going to heaven'. People learn, experience, and more from evil actions, regardless of the salvation question.

Anyway, switching back to the start: Daniel Smith comes from a classical theist perspective. It's the same as the perspective I come from, and one I endorse reading up on. But I think the middle of a PoE discussion is one of the worse times to start talking about classical theism – it's a pretty big switch of topic and understanding, and it involves a shift in thinking about God not just where evil is concerned, but where a lot of things are concerned. Still, Feser's The Last Superstition and Aquinas are good starts if you're actually interested in that.

Comment by nullasalus — February 4, 2013 @ 3:25 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 4th, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Daniel, I sincerely hope that if an attacker breaks into your home and proceeds to do harm to your loved ones, that you would not cross your arms and do nothing because "we all die anyway" and "we're spiritual beings".

I don't know how "sincere" you are – based on your gross mischaracterization of what I said. I thought you wanted to have a rational discussion about this issue. It seems you don't.

Your arguments so far boil down to: "God doesn't act like I think he should". That's fine – if you only want to disbelieve in the "God" of your imagination. If you really want to challenge yourself though, you'll have to actually read what some of the great thinkers of Christianity have written and then see how well your views hold up against that.

If you have a substantive argument against what I've said, I'll happily indulge you. Otherwise, we're done here.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 4, 2013 @ 8:20 pm

nullasalus Says:
February 4th, 2013 at 9:07 pm
Daniel,

I don't know how "sincere" you are – based on your gross mischaracterization of what I said. I thought you wanted to have a rational discussion about this issue. It seems you don't.

C'mon, I think it's way too early into the conversation to think that. Even you have to admit that the classical theist view of God – which I myself accept – is something that requires some study, and that people often tend to think of God as 'a human, but really powerful' basically, for a variety of reasons. I love an argument as much as anyone else, but I think this conversation would go better if it actually was a conversation, not a point/counterpoint fight to see who wins.

I recall a Thomist saying once that the problem of evil wasn't intellectually challenging to the CT view of God, but it damn sure was emotionally challenging. That's worth considering.

Comment by nullasalus — February 4, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

Guts Says:
February 4th, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Daniel,

The only reason why I'm participating in this thread is because I was annoyed at your assertion that I "deconverted" over a trivial matter as though I were a simpleton. Obviously there is a vast literature on this subject alone and it is no simple matter as I think I have shown in this thread.

Null,

I honestly don't think it matters whether you are God, angel , or human. If you have an advanced enough consciousness, doing nothing while you're loved ones are harmed makes you a devil. I don't see any reason why your nature would change whether that is a morally correct thing to do.

Also, I think i'm done here as well. Thanks for all your thoughts.

Comment by Guts — February 4, 2013 @ 10:23 pm

nullasalus Says:
February 4th, 2013 at 10:40 pm
Guts,

I know you said you're done here, so if you don't reply, that's fine. But I wanted to respond to this.

I honestly don't think it matters whether you are God, angel , or human. If you have an advanced enough consciousness, doing nothing while you're loved ones are harmed makes you a devil. I don't see any reason why your nature would change whether that is a morally correct thing to do.

Well, if ever you get the time or inclination, I'd suggest you read up on Classical Theism because it explains, among other things, exactly why there is a difference between what God would do and what a human would do, and why it's a mistake to think of God as just another agent, or even as a being for whom you can say "their act X is morally correct".

But even without that in mind, I don't think it's so simple. Even from a 'God as just another, powerful being' perspective – like God is just like man, basically, but supremely powerful – it's not clear cut. You'd be talking about an omniscient, omnipotent being dealing with creatures who, at His will, have eternal life – a being who observes and interacts from eternity. Think of how many different ways a being like that could solve problems, and what even would constitute a 'problem' from their perspective.

All I'm saying is, if you're going to take on the belief that God is just another agent – some powerful being who is omnipotent, omniscient, etc – then go the whole way. Don't imagine (just to use two examples) Superman or Doctor Doom. Grapple with what omniscient and omnipotence is, and consider how that weighs in on judging His acts.

Anyway, good luck.

Comment by nullasalus — February 4, 2013 @ 10:40 pm

Euphrates Says:
February 5th, 2013 at 4:06 am
I'm never really convinced when an ex-believer cites the problem of evil as the reason they left the faith. There's just so much good theodicy out there. Glad you mentioned "other stuff", Guts. I hope you take your time dealing with it – I went through a similar time a few years back and I remember well how difficult it was.

Comment by Euphrates — February 5, 2013 @ 4:06 am

chunkdz Says:
February 5th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Guts was a Christian?!?

Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2013 @ 6:22 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 5th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Guts,

I'm sorry for the way I answered your objection. When I read it, I thought you were just being "snarky" and blowing my statements out of proportion. After I posted my response, I thought about it some more and your point finally dawned on me (I'm real slow some times!) and I realized it is a valid counter-argument.

So your objection, if I can rephrase it, is that God doesn't act to stop atrocities (like any decent human would) – thus God doesn't even meet the standards of decency we humans strive for.

Is that an accurate assessment?

If so, I'll try to answer it as best I can. Remember, I'm a total amateur at this – having no formal theological or philosophical training – so my attempts at argument are at the layman level.

We are temporal beings. For us, "good" consists of what we know from our temporal reality.

God is not temporal but eternal. For God, "good" consists of what he knows from his eternal reality.*

For this reason, Jesus said to the Pharisees, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight".

Jesus was making the point that not everything that is a temporal good is necessarily an eternal good. Some things, while they may advance us temporally, are not good for our soul (dishonesty, arrogance, theft, etc.) Essentially God is on another level and we are not privy to what goes on there so we are not in a position to judge whether something is an eternal good or not.

It's like the toddler chasing the ball into the road. For the toddler, nothing is "better" than that ball and anything that stops him from obtaining that ball is "bad" – so when his dad grabs him up abruptly and stops him from running into the street, his dad is "bad" and he fights him because that's all he knows. Now that's over simplistic but the point is – we're not God and – just like the toddler is not privy (yet) to all that goes on in daddy's mind, so too we are not privy to all that goes on in God's mind.

Now, to atrocities: We know that evil is all around us and it is obvious that God is not stepping in to stop every instance of it. The question then is: Does that make God "evil"?

I know for a fact that – had I been at Newtown with a gun, and had I seen that guy shooting those kids – I certainly would have blown his head off. No question. So why didn't a good God step in to do what I would have done in a heartbeat? I can't say for sure – not having direct access to the mind of God – but my feeling is that it's for the same reason that everything else happens in this world – natural disasters, plane crashes, wars, abortions, etc. Because God allows things to play out. He's on a different timeframe. For God, this life is not all there is.

God, for whatever reason, has decided to allow good and evil to exist side by side in this world. He does promise a world where good and evil are segregated but we have to live through this one first. In this world, we have a choice. Evil predominates, but we can still choose the good. Perhaps that's all it is about – choices. Perhaps everything that happens only happens to prove what we're made of. I don't know.

The thing about it is – the first family on this Earth (according to the bible) endured a brutal murder. So it's been this way from the start. Consequently, there really isn't a "problem of evil" from a theological perspective – other than the problem of sin Jesus died for.

That's my perspective on it anyway…

* (I'm anthropomorphizing God a bit for the benefit of argument here – in reality "good" is just what God is.)

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 5, 2013 @ 9:02 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 5th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
nullasalus wrote:

Also, I don't think AOFM was connecting 'learning' from 'going to heaven'. People learn, experience, and more from evil actions, regardless of the salvation question.

True, mainly because I don't think of "going to heaven" as the end of the game, so to speak.

Humanity has a destiny, not just a destination.

It surprises me how very few people – especially Christians – infer the obvious question when told of the "prize" of eternal life. What are we going to do once we get immortality? The same things we're doing now? Or even less?

I don't think so. I think eternal life is just a beginning. And it just so happens you will be with (or possibly a part of) God during that eternity.

Who would want to live an eternity with someone they hate? Certainly God would not force you to do so. It would be better to stop existing than to live forever with (or as a part of) a being that you detested. And since non-existence after death is a undisputable tenet of atheism, why waste over $3 million to tell jersey-wearing, beer-chugging, fattening-snack-eating, slackjawed dunderheads that they would be smart special little snowflakes for believing the blinding obvious?

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 5, 2013 @ 9:34 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 5th, 2013 at 9:55 pm
DERP.

I got punked. That Superbowl ad was a hoax. My goofy youngest son insisted it was shown, knowing I don't watch the Superbowl.

APOLOGIES SORRY OOPS.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 5, 2013 @ 9:55 pm

Guts Says:
February 6th, 2013 at 1:16 am
go fuck yourself Chunkdz

Comment by Guts — February 6, 2013 @ 1:16 am

nullasalus Says:
February 6th, 2013 at 3:17 am
AOFM,

I agree with the in large part. For whatever reason the resurrection of the body tends to be glossed over by people, which I think plays a big role in that thought.

Comment by nullasalus — February 6, 2013 @ 3:17 am

chunkdz Says:
February 6th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
I seriously imagined Guts to be a pro-ID atheist or agnostic who tolerated but didn't particularly like hearing about the Christian perspective.

Comment by chunkdz — February 6, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 6th, 2013 at 9:39 pm
The problem of evil in easily digestible video form (each one a little over 3 minutes long).

From C.S. Lewis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Way-too-fast talking cartoon form:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I also saw a rebuttal by cdk007, a Youtube atheist, but I didn't watch the whole thing, since he immediately dismissed any argument of what good and evil actually are and used a nominally Christian basis on which to argue his point.

If you're going to throw out the bathwater, you can't just leave the baby in it.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 6, 2013 @ 9:39 pm

chunkdz Says:
February 6th, 2013 at 11:04 pm
If you're going to throw out the bathwater, you can't just leave the baby in it.

I think Peter Singer said it's ok to throw a baby out up to the age of 6 months.

(Though he would likely protest the throwing out of perfectly good bathwater.)

Comment by chunkdz — February 6, 2013 @ 11:04 pm

chunkdz Says:
February 7th, 2013 at 12:09 pm
go fuck yourself Chunkdz

I wasn't making fun of you. I just never knew.

My high esteem for you would not have changed one bit whatever your outlook on God.

Comment by chunkdz — February 7, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 7th, 2013 at 8:57 pm
chunkdz wrote:

I think Peter Singer said it's ok to throw a baby out up to the age of 6 months.

(Though he would likely protest the throwing out of perfectly good bathwater.)

Well of course. The bathwater is good, because it is useful. The baby is evil, because all it does is cry, eat, and excrete, all the while making his/her parents suffer with deprivation of sleep and other valuable resources.

I don't know why Singer stops at 6 months, if indeed he does. To be truly consistent with his utilitarian philosophy, he should call for post-birth abortion up to the point of when the collection of cells reaches voting age or when it is gainfully employed, whichever comes first.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 7, 2013 @ 8:57 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 8th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
To be truly consistent, there would be no limit. Abortion could occur at any age and at any time.

Once the STATE decides you no longer serve a useful purpose… boom – gone.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 8, 2013 @ 8:13 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 8th, 2013 at 8:30 pm

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 8, 2013 @ 8:30 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 9th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
I like how they turned into zombies at the end!

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 9, 2013 @ 12:31 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
I'm wondering how Guts and others here would respond to the growing rumor that Sandy Hook was a hoax – a staged event?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Especially chilling is the point about 9 minutes into the video when one of the "parents" of a child murdered at Sandy Hook, comes out to do a press conference. He is smiling and saying "ready?" then – right in front of the camera (which he was not aware was rolling) – he "gets into character" and works up some sadness before beginning to talk.

I was skeptical until that point – now I'm not sure.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 10, 2013 @ 2:06 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 2:37 pm

C'mon dude. Don't go Bilbo on us now.

Yes, I've seen the video you're talking about. Yes, the guy's actions are strange and possibly inappropriate. In the same situation (God forbid) my wife and I would have been inconsolable.

But I've seen strange people in my life, both in person and on video. I think it's more likely that the father is a sociopath than it is for a conspiracy existing that involved faking the deaths of 20 first-graders.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 10, 2013 @ 2:37 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
I've been as hard on Bilbo as anybody – so don't pull the "crackpot" card on me without hearing me out.

First, I'm not totally on board with all this but there are a lot of unanswered questions. What about the memorial pages being set up before the shooting happened? Or the man in camo, chased into the woods, and handcuffed just as the first cameras arrived on scene? Or the medical examiner and police claiming that the "long gun" was the only weapon used when the rifle was found in the trunk of the shooter's car – unused? Or the fact that nobody has been filmed grieving over this? No ambulances ever went to the school. No triage tent was set up. No footage exists of parents arriving at the school or kids fleeing from the school (there's just one still shot of kids being led by a teacher through the parking lot like a fire drill.)

And here's something I found entirely on my own after just a few minutes of searching. The 2010-2011 Sandy Hook Students Handbook lists "Vicki Soto" – the first grade teacher killed at Sandy Hook – as an "intern" – not a teacher. All the stories I found about her say that she had been teaching there for five years.

It may not mean a thing – but it is another oddity that adds to the questions mounting about this incident.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 10, 2013 @ 4:05 pm

nullasalus Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 5:18 pm
I think a lot of the initial inaccuracies about the shooting can be chalked up to journalists largely being a pack of idiots who were rushing to break details on the story before anything could be confirmed.

I recall reading over some news site at the time when it was being reported that the wrong Lanza's facebook/twitter was being linked to. Someone in the comments section was furious, insisting that this came from the police themselves and 'there's NO WAY they would screw up a detail like that'.

Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 5:44 pm
When a friend at work first told me about this, that's what I thought too. After doing some snooping, I'm less convinced that this is just typical journalistic ineptness though.

I have to add – I'm not a conspiracy buff: I believe the government's story on JFK and 9/11. Something about this just doesn't add up though.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 10, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
I just typed a bunch of stuff then hit the wrong button and lost about an hour's worth of work.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 10, 2013 @ 6:26 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Ctrl+Z = undo

Sometimes that works (for next time!)

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 10, 2013 @ 6:37 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Daniel Smith wrote:

When a friend at work first told me about this, that's what I thought too. After doing some snooping, I'm less convinced that this is just typical journalistic ineptness though.

Your snooping consisted of one ultimate source: Infowars.com.

If Infowars has a "water found to be wet" update, I immediately check it myself.

I have to add – I'm not a conspiracy buff: I believe the government's story on JFK and 9/11. Something about this just doesn't add up though.

I don't believe the official story on JFK's assassination, for what it's worth to you.

Daniel Smith wrote earlier:

I've been as hard on Bilbo as anybody – so don't pull the "crackpot" card on me without hearing me out.

I've never called Bilbo or you a crackpot. That's a serious charge implying a significant cognitive deficit. I wouldn't use it lightly.

Bilbo's just had a thing about 9/11. I don't know if he still has a thing for it now that Bush is out and Obama is in, but such a changeover would make it difficult for me to believe it.

What about the memorial pages being set up before the shooting happened?

Can't comment on those, don't know anything about them.

Or the man in camo, chased into the woods, and handcuffed just as the first cameras arrived on scene?

Chris Manfredonia. A parent who got impatient with the cops and decided to try extricating his daughter from the school himself.

Or the medical examiner and police claiming that the "long gun" was the only weapon used when the rifle was found in the trunk of the shooter's car – unused?

Lanza brought 4 weapons to the scene: 2 handguns, 1 rifle, and 1 shotgun. He carried the handguns and rifle into the school and left the shotgun in the car trunk.

Or the fact that nobody has been filmed grieving over this?
No ambulances ever went to the school. No triage tent was set up. No footage exists of parents arriving at the school or kids fleeing from the school (there's just one still shot of kids being led by a teacher through the parking lot like a fire drill.)

A fact? C'mon dude.

And here's something I found entirely on my own after just a few minutes of searching. The 2010-2011 Sandy Hook Students Handbook lists "Vicki Soto" – the first grade teacher killed at Sandy Hook – as an "intern" – not a teacher. All the stories I found about her say that she had been teaching there for five years.

Is this like the "They spelled Elvis's middle name wrong on his tombstone, so he's alive" thing? C'mon dude. Come. On.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 10, 2013 @ 6:53 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 9:25 pm
Here's video of at least one firetruck and ambulance at the scene.

Here's more raw footage uploaded on the day of the shooting, showing at least 3 ambulances, along with an interview with some medical personnel and video of parents getting their children from the school.

This is just me searching Youtube with "newtown raw footage". No doubt there's plenty more to show how goofy (or mercenary) Alex Jones is.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 10, 2013 @ 9:25 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Here's video of at least one firetruck and ambulance at the scene.

Here's more raw footage uploaded the day of the shooting, showing at least 3 ambulances, along with an interview with some medical personnel and video of parents getting their children from the school.

This is just me searching Youtube with "newtown raw footage". No doubt there's plenty more to counter Alex Jones's nonsense.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 10, 2013 @ 9:26 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 10th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Before anybody starts posting about anagrams of "Chris Manfredonia" or how the video is actually some stock footage, let me present a more plausible scenario. One that I don't actually believe, mind you, just one more plausible than somewhow faking (or "staging") this shooting.

1. The government's objective is to disarm the entire populace. They plan to do this by capitalizing on a tragic incident, inciting outrage among the majority and getting them to ask for the disarming.

2. The government was on a tight schedule for their Reichstag fire, and they had to ensure that the event was outrageous enough to provoke the desired result.

3. The populace has been made pliable and open to control via psychoactive drugs.

4. There are any number of individuals who essentially could be mind-controlled robots, spreading directed chaos if they are fed the proper commands by one of a few handlers.

In other words, the Telefon scenario.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 10, 2013 @ 10:08 pm

Guts Says:
February 11th, 2013 at 1:07 am
I'm wondering how Guts and others here would respond to the growing rumor that Sandy Hook was a hoax – a staged event?

My response is, go check yourself in to a mental hospital ya fuckin nut

Comment by Guts — February 11, 2013 @ 1:07 am

angryoldfatman Says:
February 11th, 2013 at 11:20 am
damn guts u b harsh

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 11, 2013 @ 11:20 am

chunkdz Says:
February 11th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
If it was a false flag I wouldn't count on any more for a good while. All this one proved is that when the President starts talking gun control after a most horrendous gun incident the people respond by running to the gun store and buying up everything in sight. I went to the store last weekend and it was like a horde of locusts.

Comment by chunkdz — February 11, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

hrun0815 Says:
February 12th, 2013 at 7:22 pm
You are all idiots! Clearly Newtown was artfully staged by the NRA to further the sales of guns. It all makes sense.

Comment by hrun0815 — February 12, 2013 @ 7:22 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 12th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Your snooping consisted of one ultimate source: Infowars.com.

Never heard of them. My snooping consisted of me watching a few more YouTube videos (other than the one I linked to) and going to the Sandy Hook school website.

What about the memorial pages being set up before the shooting happened?

Can't comment on those, don't know anything about them.

It's in the video I linked to.

Chris Manfredonia. A parent who got impatient with the cops and decided to try extricating his daughter from the school himself.

Just a coincidence I guess that he was in camo pants and black shirt.

Lanza brought 4 weapons to the scene: 2 handguns, 1 rifle, and 1 shotgun. He carried the handguns and rifle into the school and left the shotgun in the car trunk.

OK, I've heard differing accounts as to the weaponry. Your source is definitive?

Here's video of at least one firetruck and ambulance at the scene.

Those are at the firehouse – not the school.

Here's more raw footage uploaded on the day of the shooting, showing at least 3 ambulances, along with an interview with some medical personnel and video of parents getting their children from the school.

One fire truck is at the school – everything else is at the firehouse down the road.

This is just me searching Youtube with "newtown raw footage". No doubt there's plenty more to show how goofy (or mercenary) Alex Jones is.

Alex Jones? I've heard the name, but have no idea how you think that figures into my world.

Or do you just lump all of us crackpots together?

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 12, 2013 @ 8:43 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 12th, 2013 at 8:44 pm
My response is, go check yourself in to a mental hospital ya fuckin nut

…

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 12, 2013 @ 8:44 pm

Eugen Says:
February 12th, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Today is Darwin Day. I wish everybody an unhappy Darwin's Day!

Comment by Eugen — February 12, 2013 @ 9:33 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 13th, 2013 at 12:49 am
Daniel Smith wrote:

Never heard of them [Infowars.com]. My snooping consisted of me watching a few more YouTube videos (other than the one I linked to) and going to the Sandy Hook school website.

That's why I used the word "ultimate". Look for the logo in the lower corners of the videos you "snooped".

It's in the video I linked to.

I'm not going through the effort of watching the latest Dylan Avery-style bumblestumbling to get 3 seconds of video that doesn't lead anywhere solid and verifiable.

Just a coincidence I guess that he was in camo pants and black shirt.

Dude. Honestly? Really? His clothing? That's your evidence?

Do you not read what you're typing here? How desperate do you have to be to grasp at straws like this?

I personally know guys who's entire wardrobe is practically nothing but camo and/or black. That doesn't make them murderers, that makes them rednecks with no fashion sense.

I'm even related to a good many of them.

OK, I've heard differing accounts as to the weaponry. Your source is definitive?

Practically every major news outlet since the initial chaos shook out. CNN and CBS are just two national outlets with that info, and they no doubt were relaying info from Connecticut sources. PLUS, the math involved: 3 weapons reported almost immediately, then the raw Newtown footage I posted earlier with gun enthusiasts positively identifying the trunk weapon as a combat shotgun.

Those ambulances are at the firehouse – not the school.

One fire truck is at the school – everything else is at the firehouse down the road.

There were ambulances at the scene. You claimed there weren't. I guess you expected to find them parked on the roof, beats me.

Alex Jones? I've heard the name, but have no idea how you think that figures into my world.

Or do you just lump all of us crackpots together?

Alex Jones runs Infowars. Infowars had its logos all over the "OMG HOAX" videos. Jones is the one who makes money off of selling this stuff, e.g. videos made by amateur lackeys and his radio show.

You should have noticed this. If you did notice it and just ignored it, then you're a sucker and I've some Nigerian investment deals just for you.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 13, 2013 @ 12:49 am

Heartlander Says:
February 13th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
I understand that distrust in the government, media, and established organizations, has always existed and can be healthy in calculated doses – but it is interesting to observe the current level of distrust. Step back and look at the accusations:

- On 9/11 the government orchestrated planes flying into the twin towers, which had been previously been loaded with explosives, in order to start a war.
- Sandy Hook was devised by the government in order to initially pass new gun control legislation and to eventually confiscate all guns.

It seems to me that this level of distrust is off the charts. Personally, I think the government is incompetent but they will use tragedy to their advantage.

That said, I would blame our ‘new media’ for the level of distrust. It is hard to know what to believe. We no longer get news or facts – we get opinion – and not just from TV – we get it from bloggers, special interest websites, memes, Comedy Central, twitter, youtube, etc… Whatever your worldview is, there is a place that will cater to those views. It’s just a matter of choosing your poison (or propaganda).

Comment by Heartlander — February 13, 2013 @ 5:28 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 13th, 2013 at 7:47 pm
I'm not going through the effort of watching the latest Dylan Avery-style bumblestumbling to get 3 seconds of video that doesn't lead anywhere solid and verifiable.

You asked and I told you. If you're convinced it's inaccurate before you even see it, well…

Just a coincidence I guess that he was in camo pants and black shirt.

Dude. Honestly? Really? His clothing? That's your evidence?

That and the fact that he ran into the woods when the police approached.

Do you not read what you're typing here? How desperate do you have to be to grasp at straws like this?

I haven't even made a decision as to what I believe yet. I'm still weighing the evidence. The difference between me and you (apparently) is that I have not closed my mind to anything that contradicts the official story. I'm just a skeptic is all.

Practically every major news outlet since the initial chaos shook out. CNN and CBS are just two national outlets with that info, and they no doubt were relaying info from Connecticut sources. PLUS, the math involved: 3 weapons reported almost immediately, then the raw Newtown footage I posted earlier with gun enthusiasts positively identifying the trunk weapon as a combat shotgun.

Fair enough.

Those ambulances are at the firehouse – not the school.

One fire truck is at the school – everything else is at the firehouse down the road.

There were ambulances at the scene. You claimed there weren't. I guess you expected to find them parked on the roof, beats me.

The firehouse is down the road from the school. How many times have you seen ambulances picking up injured people that far away from the actual scene?

This is the thing that has me most troubled. There were 600 kids at that school. 20 were killed – that leaves 580 kids. The official story is that those 580 kids were moved to the firehouse to rendezvous with parents there. We also know that there was at least one news helicopter on scene while the kids were still in the school because we have footage of that camo wearing dad being chased into the woods and captured – and he was impatiently trying to get his daughter out.

So, in all your searches through raw footage from reliable sources, did you run across footage of any of those 580 kids being moved from the school to the firehouse?

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 13, 2013 @ 7:47 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 13th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Heartlander wrote:

It seems to me that this level of distrust is off the charts. Personally, I think the government is incompetent but they will use tragedy to their advantage.

Exactly. Rahm Emanuel said it best when he was Obama's Chief of Staff: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 13, 2013 @ 7:55 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 13th, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Heartlander:

It seems to me that this level of distrust is off the charts.

The problem, as I see it, is that we live in a society that has no qualms about lying. Honesty is not honored or expected anymore.

Personally, I think the government is incompetent but they will use tragedy to their advantage.

Yes they will. "Never let a crisis go to waste" could be the oath politicians swear to (instead of that silly 'constitution' one!)

That said, I would blame our ‘new media’ for the level of distrust.

I think there is a lot wrong with the new media (re: lying above), but I also think that the new media has occasionally brought things to light that the establishment media tried to hide. So it's a two edged sword.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 13, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
February 13th, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Daniel Smith wrote:

I'm not going through the effort of watching the latest Dylan Avery-style bumblestumbling to get 3 seconds of video that doesn't lead anywhere solid and verifiable.

You asked and I told you. If you're convinced it's inaccurate before you even see it, well…

Anytime 30 minutes of video with "INFOWARS.COM" splashed all over it is substituted for a simple URL, you're damn right I'm convinced it's inaccurate.

I watched the first few minutes of the video when you first linked it, which honestly is all I could withstand.

At least point me to the place in the video where they're shown, damn.

That and the fact that he ran into the woods when the police approached.

See, this is where you stopped using logic altogether. Just think a bit here.

THERE'S NO REASON FOR A MYSTERIOUS "SECOND SHOOTER" IF THE ENTIRE THING IS A STAGED HOAX.

I haven't even made a decision as to what I believe yet. I'm still weighing the evidence.

Yes you have, and no you're not. You stopped weighing the evidence right after you posted the link, if not before.

The difference between me and you (apparently) is that I have not closed my mind to anything that contradicts the official story. I'm just a skeptic is all.

The difference I'm seeing is that I'm not willing to weave more and more elaborate and convoluted explanations for a thing just to keep from admitting I'm wrong.

The firehouse is down the road from the school. How many times have you seen ambulances picking up injured people that far away from the actual scene?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about above, as far as what I myself am willing to admit.

I really and truly don't know the exact spot the ambulances and firetrucks were parked in my previously linked videos.

Now I've found some better video.

There was a firetruck parked in front of the school as shown in this helicopter footage starting at the 3:08 mark.

There is also an uncovered triage area near the firetruck. Note the yellow and red tarps on the pavement.

So, in all your searches through raw footage from reliable sources, did you run across footage of any of those 580 kids being moved from the school to the firehouse?

No.

Apparently the Newtown Bee (as evidenced by this ABC News video at the :51 second mark) has some footage of at least some of that.

But if the raw footage I've linked, the footage you can find with a simple Youtube search isn't enough to convince you that there was no need for anything to faked, then I honestly don't know what will.

I'm not a big fan of the government, especially the feds. I still believe they want to erase the 2nd Amendment, along with any other part of the Constitution that impedes their "progress". I just have no reason to think this is anything other than what it appears to be – a horrific mass murder carried out by a psychologically fragile human being.

Comment by angryoldfatman — February 13, 2013 @ 9:36 pm

Heartlander Says:
February 13th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
Daniel,

I see nothing worth arguing about in your post to me – in fact I agree.

Bottom line here is that experience with this new media has caused me to have caution when attempting to discern fact from fiction. It is too easy to get fooled – and realize it a few weeks later…

Comment by Heartlander — February 13, 2013 @ 9:45 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
February 14th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Yes you have, and no you're not. You stopped weighing the evidence right after you posted the link, if not before.

I'm done.

Comment by Daniel Smith — February 14, 2013 @ 7:42 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
March 19th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

lol

Comment by angryoldfatman — March 19, 2013 @ 11:01 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
April 20th, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Hey all,

I'm not sure how often folks check in here but if anyone happens to be listening I'd be interested in discussing this story.

It seems to me that these folks might be on to something. At least they have provided a way to discuss intelligence that would satisfy AIGUY.

I find this paragraph interesting

The proposal requires that a system be able to process information and predict future histories very quickly in order for it to exhibit intelligent behavior. Wissner-Gross suggested that the new findings fit well within an argument linking the origin of intelligence to natural selection and Darwinian evolution — that nothing besides the laws of nature are needed to explain intelligence.

It seems that the first sentence is inconsistent with the second one.

Are they actually claiming that the laws of nature are "able to process information and predict future histories very quickly"? This seems to be a quite a personification of nature.

Like I said I find it very interesting. This is the kind of ID stuff I expect we will see more and more of in the future.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 20, 2013 @ 2:55 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
April 20th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
sorry here is the link

Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 20, 2013 @ 2:59 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 20th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
A cursory reading of your link, FMM, certainly seems to bear you out.

Something seems contradictory about the whole mess. Entropy causing reversals of entropy, and whatnot.

My oldest son, a freshly-christened mechanical engineer, could probably rip this one apart with a little effort. He knows a lot more about thermodynamics than I could even begin to talk about.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 20, 2013 @ 7:48 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
April 21st, 2013 at 10:06 am
Hey AOFM,

I agree that the link seems to be confused and contradictory but I find the underlying concept fascinating

What do you think of the of the following paragraph

[their algorithm] Entropica's intelligent behavior emerges from the "physical process of trying to capture as many future histories as possible," said Wissner-Gross. Future histories represent the complete set of possible future outcomes available to a system at any given moment.

Thinking of intelligence as "the ability to maximize possible future outcomes" seems to be a very unique and fruitful way of looking at things.

If we look at frontloanding for example. A primordial cell line that has the inherent potential to become eukaryote would be seen as demonstrating more intelligence than one with out that potential.

By the same token a universe fine-tuned to support intelligent life would itself be the hallmark of a very intelligent source because it has more potential histories than a sterile cosmos .

according to this definition even a bacterial flagellum is evidence of intelligence in that there are so many different ways that it can malfunction.

All in all it seems that the paper has granted all IDs stated premises but simply denied that intelligence requires conscious agency.

color me intrigued

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 21, 2013 @ 10:06 am

angryoldfatman Says:
April 21st, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Yeah, FMM, I completely agree. It seems to make a case for foresight, then denies it.

Of course it uses word definitions in way typical of such fields, in that words and phrases are used commonly in a colliquial fashion but mean entirely different, much narrower range of things in that field.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 21, 2013 @ 5:41 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
April 24th, 2013 at 7:23 am
some practical questions

I'm wondering if we can use the paper's implied definition of intelligence as "the ability to maximize possible future outcomes" to make predictions or evaluate artifacts?

If we look at Mt Rushmore for example can we quantify the number of 'future outcomes' that are possible for the artifact as contrasted with a normal rock formation? I think it is theoretically possible to do so.

You could even compile an intelligence scale to compare one artifact with another.

just thinking out loud

Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 24, 2013 @ 7:23 am

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Open Thread

158 Responses to “Open Thread”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books