Evolution is a part of a "strong delusion" in the end times?

[John Hyperspace]

I have already given you a list of some of the major diseases over which we now have control (I note you have changed your language from ONE "bullet" to 'several' ....... we seem to be making headway....). To that list you could add others such as tuberculosis, rabies, rinderpest, tetanus, influenza.

These are the MAJOR infectious disease killers from our past. You might describe it as removing just 'several' bullets from the 'gun', but such a statement is disingenuous. Not all 'bullets' are equal. For example, the control of influenza, measles and smallpox ALONE accounts for the removal of the great bulk of threat of death by infectious disease.

One of the problems facing mankind is that they are "subject to contracting crippling/deadly disease"; all of your speaking here does not in any way, shape or form meaningfully change the fact that mankind is still "subject to contracting crippling/deadly diseases". This is a fact of the matter. You are free to reject the facts, but that simply means your ideology is based on faith in your own "preaching"

What you are proposing is akin to a man trying to pump water from a continually refilling basement, pumping a gallon out for every two that come in, holding his head up high and stating "My elimination of each gallon is meaningful in the face of my situation" while I simply stand by shaking my head and watching the water rising toward your upheld chin.

Yes.

Then I can only respond, I've not seen so great a faith in all of religion.

I have just celebrated my 88th birthday during this past week. A few centuries ago, I would have been most unlikely to make such a boast. The probabilities are such that I would have been dead for at least 20 years. (I know this as a result of a 'scientific examination' of the statistics, by the way....).

I can't say I'm glad that you think that the fact that you've just turned 88 somehow demonstrates that prolonged life is somehow an alleviation of death, or any of the other problems mankind truly faces. But I can say that your statement is entirely meaningless, and does not in any way, shape or form demonstrate that "systematic investigation of the natural world" has in any way meaningfully contributed to the statement "the world is LESS torn by division, strife, violence". Perhaps you could in some way explain how "systematic investigation of the natural world" has meaningfully contributed to any of these? As opposed to how, diplomacy, ethical philosophy, and emotional appeal may have done so?

Or, do you believe I will just accept your words like a little old lady accepts the words of her pulpit preacher, without question? You seem to be a preacher preaching a religion, and are becoming frustrated that I will not accept your words on appeals to emotion alone.

 

[SteveB28]

One of the problems facing mankind is that they are "subject to contracting crippling/deadly disease"; all of your speaking here does not in any way, shape or form meaningfully change the fact that mankind is still "subject to contracting crippling/deadly diseases". This is a fact of the matter. You are free to reject the facts, but that simply means your ideology is based on faith in your own "preaching"

And part of that fact is that we are now LESS likely to contract those most crippling and deadly diseases.......LESS LIKELY....! Does your understanding of probabilities permit you to grasp that significance?

Due to the advances made through 'scientific examination of the natural world', you are LESS likely to die young from smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, rabies, the plague, or galloping-bloody-consumption, than your 17th Century ancestors...!

Good grief......

What you are proposing is akin to a man trying to pump water from a continually refilling basement, pumping a gallon out for every two that come in, holding his head up high and stating "My elimination of each gallon is meaningful in the face of my situation" while I simply stand by shaking my head and watching the water rising toward your upheld chin.

To support that claim, you would have to show that we are now MORE likely to contract those, or other, threatening diseases. You would have to show that the 'water level' is in fact rising.

Away you go.....!

I can't say I'm glad that you think that the fact that you've just turned 88 somehow demonstrates that prolonged life is somehow an alleviation of death,

Pardon...?? Do you want to read that ridiculous statement back to yourself?

Being alive DOESN'T mean you're not dead.....??

Oh dear......

or any of the other problems mankind truly faces. But I can say that your statement is entirely meaningless, and does not in any way, shape or form demonstrate that "systematic investigation of the natural world" has in any way meaningfully contributed to the statement "the world is LESS torn by division, strife, violence". Perhaps you could in some way explain how "systematic investigation of the natural world" has meaningfully contributed to any of these? As opposed to how, diplomacy, ethical philosophy, and emotional appeal may have done so?

I can see you are the type that needs to have things repeated over and over before they sink in....so be it.

Because, as I have already posited, scientific enquiry serves to overcome ignorance and superstition, which have been two of the major factors that have contributed to those social ills of the past.

Take just the concept of race as an example.....'scientific examination of the natural world' demonstrates to us that the idea of 'race' is a confection. There is only one species of human existing, contrary to that which our ignorant forebears considered. The black and yellow skinned peoples were regarded as less than human, resulting in many of the social horrors we have visited upon ourselves. A clearer understanding, provided by science, is alleviating these prejudices.

Or, do you believe I will just accept your words like a little old lady accepts the words of her pulpit preacher, without question? You seem to be a preacher preaching a religion, and are becoming frustrated that I will not accept your words on appeals to emotion alone.

Aah, I'd forgotten to whom I'm speaking......you know, it never ceases to amuse me that religious people like yourself, when they want to insult another's philosophy, will often resort to calling it a "religion"....!

Is there a little self-loathing going on here, perhaps....?



.

 

[loveofourlord]

well he would be correct in that some diseases like cancer and alzheimers have gone up, though mostly due to the fact that people are more likly to live long enough to contract them. basicly diseases that are heavily influenced by age.

 

[SteveB28]

well he would be correct in that some diseases like cancer and alzheimers have gone up, though mostly due to the fact that people are more likly to live long enough to contract them. basicly diseases that are heavily influenced by age.

And our death rates from cancer are DECLINING....! I wonder why that might be....?

 

[John Hyperspace]

And part of that fact is that we are now LESS likely to contract those most crippling and deadly diseases.......LESS LIKELY....! Does your understanding of probabilities permit you to grasp that significance?

Does your understanding of probabilities allow you to acknowledge that removing one bullet from a revolver with a chamber containing 10,000 bullets produces "no substantial or meaningful change" to the man about to play Russian Roulette? I note you are beginning to become agitated by your inability to demonstrate "meaningful change via systematic investigation of the natural world"

Being alive DOESN'T mean you're not dead.....??

Oh dear......

It means that extension of life has no meaningfully alleviated the problem of death; just allowed you to "avoid" it for a very, very, very brief amount of time. Also, extended life has no meaningfful alleviation of the problems of mankind since an extension of life simply means, extension of experience of the problems which have not been alleiviated in any meaningful way.

Take just the concept of race as an example.....'scientific examination of the natural world' demonstrates to us that the idea of 'race' is a confection.

Explain the use of the scientific method to demonstrate this. Right now you are simply speaking rhetoric which has no basis in scientific investigation of the natural world. Am I to believe that this is your concept of science? "Rhetoric"?

There is only one species of human existing, contrary to that which our ignorant forebears considered. The black and yellow skinned peoples were regarded as less than human, resulting in many of the social horrors we have visited upon ourselves. A clearer understanding, provided by science, is alleviating these prejudices.

Strange that "race relations" (not to mention cultrual/ideological divisions) is very problematic to us at this present time. Also, try again to bear in mind that we are talking about "meaningful" change. Again, you seem to be saying the same as "medicine took a bullet out of the chamber of a gun with 10,000 bullets in it" then standing there with chin upheld as though that is supposed to be meaningful. It is not. Neither is your current rhetoric which is unsubstantiated as a product of "systematic investigation of the natural world" but so far are merely the words of a very religious man on an internet forum, preaching religious doctrine in guise of "science"

will often resort to calling it a "religion"....!

I will permit you to choose the term for which we call "emotional belief in dogmatic rhetoric": "religion" seems to me the most appropriate but I do not wish to offend, so please advise a term (without equivocation)

 

[loveofourlord]

And our death rates from cancer are DECLINING....! I wonder why that might be....?

hehe because we made a deal with satan!!! ahem :>

well my point was more even where he's right he's ignoring the point.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Very well, mr. Hyperspace, I don't get your argument at all. What's with the monochromatic world view? Do you really think it is futile to try to improve anything in the world because you can not make it perfect? If so, I feel sorry for you - it must be terrible feeling that you can't influence your life in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Cearbhall]

What is a more powerful delusion in these days than the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, and all things that stemmed forth from these theories to create the current secular ways of thinking?

It's a pretty long "end times," then.

 

[Armoured]

As to whether Jesus is a sheep, i's clear that him being the lamb of the world is not meaning he's a literal sheep. However, that does not mean the Bible is not literal. There are loads of metaphors in it, but it's still quite literal.

And if all you can do is post a couple verses that I tbh can't be bothered refuting, because not only is it off topic it's a complete waste of time, than I won't even bother to respond. I gave a valid reason as to why the Bible HAS to be literal and you respond with "but see these verses, but". Verses, which I'm sure if you google with the word "contradiction" beside it, other men will have given you a valid answer to your so called "contradictions".

A very popular video on youtube, had about 100 contradictions on it, I once refuted every single one of them accurately for something to do. Not bragging in the slightest, just showing that the word of God is exactly that. And showing the straws that are grasped by people who claim otherwise.

So it turns out the Bible ISN'T completely literal. Thank you, that was my point. Glad you agree.

 

[Armoured]

You realize that "wow" is not an attempt at rebuttal, and that all such statements are to be intellectually regarded as a concession of inability to rebut?

In other words, "wow" is to be translated as "I am unable to offer rebuttal"?

You can interpret it that way, if you like. My intended meaning was "there's so much I disagree with in this statement I don't know where to begin", if it helps.

As for medicine having no benefit to mankind, well, you remember that next time you don't die from smallpox.

 

[AV1611VET]

So it turns out the Bible ISN'T completely literal.

Only in the sense that the newspaper isn't completely literal.

The Bible is literal, containing metaphor.

The Bible is not metaphor, containing literal.

 

[SteveB28]

Does your understanding of probabilities allow you to acknowledge that removing one bullet from a revolver with a chamber containing 10,000 bullets produces "no substantial or meaningful change" to the man about to play Russian Roulette? I note you are beginning to become agitated by your inability to demonstrate "meaningful change via systematic investigation of the natural world"

And I note that you ignored the part of my statement in which I ask you to show your evidence.

So I ask again....I can easily show how science has advanced our ability to overcome disease. But you say this is futile, because the water is rising faster than we can bail it out.

Fine....support your claim with some evidence....!

It means that extension of life has no meaningfully alleviated the problem of death; just allowed you to "avoid" it for a very, very, very brief amount of time.

Ah yes, I'm reminded again of my audience......

'This vale of tears is unimportant. The sooner it ends, the sooner we can move on to the 'real' life that awaits us. It is futile to extend/improve this life because it means nothing.'

What a sad, sad view of existence, particularly from one so young.......I really, honestly pity you, that you cannot see the value that can be gained from this existence, the only one we know we are part of.....

Also, extended life has no meaningfful alleviation of the problems of mankind since an extension of life simply means, extension of experience of the problems which have not been alleiviated in any meaningful way.

Good grief, who rained on your parade son....!?

Explain the use of the scientific method to demonstrate this. Right now you are simply speaking rhetoric which has no basis in scientific investigation of the natural world. Am I to believe that this is your concept of science? "Rhetoric"?

That's ridiculously simple. There is no significant genetic or morphological difference between the peoples of the earth.

Strange that "race relations" (not to mention cultrual/ideological divisions) is very problematic to us at this present time.

But far less of a problem than they once were, because we can no longer hide behind the ignorance and superstition of simply 'believing' that certain groups of people were 'more human' than others. Scientific enquiry has taught us the folly of that position.

I will permit you to choose the term for which we call "emotional belief in dogmatic rhetoric": "religion" seems to me the most appropriate but I do not wish to offend, so please advise a term (without equivocation)

Oh, you can use whatever term you please; I am not offended....I am amused that the worst insult you can use for another's view is to call it a 'religion'....it's very funny!

 

[SteveB28]

Now, I think I have been very generous with my time towards you. I see no value in having to repeat myself over and over, concerning concepts which should be readily apparent.

You can converse with yourself for a bit......

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am aware of this. Are you not aware that the entire point of this discussion between us is in my original statement that "systematic investigation of the natural world is an entireprise which contributes no information of substantial or meaningful worth in relation to the real problems mankind faces"?

Which is a completely absurd statement to make.

Hunger in the world, if it is solvable, is going to be solved by science.
It's science that informs us on how to best cultivate food.

Desease in the world, if solvable, will be solved by science.
It's science that informs us on how to best combat deseases.

Science is how we learn things. Knowledge is an essential ingredient in solving problems.

Also, science is not "how we learn about the natural world";

Except that it is.

we learn about the natural world through self experience

"self experience" doesn't teach us about germs, relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, nuclear forces, electro magnetism, chemistry,... etc.

All of these things fall "outside" our day-to-day experience.
We live at the macroscopic level and deal with sub-light speeds. Sub-sound speeds, actually.

Mere "self-experience" will not lead us to understand the weirdness that is caused by objects approaching light speed.
Process that take millions of years to unfold are also completely out-of-touch with what we "intuitively" know and understand. We are comfortable thinking about decades. Perhaps centuries. Millenia, is a lot harder. Millions of years, billions of years... we can't fathom what such timespans are.

Being macroscopic objects traveling at sub-sound speeds, we also are only "in touch" with the G forces we experience here on earth. We can't fathom the force of gravity at a black hole or a giant star. We also can't fathom being an insect, where gravity is actually rather neglectable and where surface tension is actually what matters, in terms of "not falling down".

No, we most definatly learn about the natural world through science, not by merely being alive.

Science is one method of systematic study of the natural world, as well as a completely theoretic enterprise.

It is an empirical enterprise and it is the single most succesfull method available to us at this time.

"Nice to understand" does not offer any substantial or meaningful alleviation of the problems of humankind.

Nore does it have to. Which is why I added "just to satisfy our human curiosity". Knowledge is its own reward, if not anything else.

Also, science does not give "understanding" it gives tentative approximations.

Same thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True. It's called "Planet Reason"; I'd be honored if you'd pay a visit someday.

Please provide the list of known diseases against the list of cured diseases.

So, your complaint about science is, that it hasn't eradicate desease COMPLETELY AND FULLY?

And you claim to be from "planet reason"?

You also seem to have some problems with reading comprehension. Nobody here has claimed that science has eradicated ALL deseases.

Try some honesty in future postings.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have already given you a list of some of the major diseases over which we now have control (I note you have changed your language from ONE "bullet" to 'several' ....... we seem to be making headway....). To that list you could add others such as tuberculosis, rabies, rinderpest, tetanus, influenza.

These are the MAJOR infectious disease killers from our past. You might describe it as removing just 'several' bullets from the 'gun', but such a statement is disingenuous. Not all 'bullets' are equal. For example, the control of influenza, measles and smallpox ALONE accounts for the removal of the great bulk of threat of death by infectious disease.

I suggest you conduct a 'scientific examination of the natural world' in this regard, in order to bring your understanding up to a reasonable level.....



Yes.

I have just celebrated my 88th birthday during this past week. A few centuries ago, I would have been most unlikely to make such a boast. The probabilities are such that I would have been dead for at least 20 years. (I know this as a result of a 'scientific examination' of the statistics, by the way....).

What has permitted me this longer life span? Luck? An angel looking over me? Or could it be that the most threatening diseases that might have cut my life short have been controlled? Could it be that modern dentistry has helped me avoid a fatal infection of my teeth? Could it be that the blood pressure and cholesterol medications that have been developed permit my body to function more efficiently? Could it be that the development of more and better strains of food sources allows my nutrition to be well served? Could it be that advances in our transport mechanism result in my food being available all year round?

Someone needs to jettison his asinine argument.......

Hey Steve, just for the record....

When I get lucky enough (pun intended, hahaha) to reach your age, I can only hope to have 1/10th of your "focus" and "clear mindedness". (trouble finding the right word).

Respect, mate. I hope that I'll be reading new posts of you for many years to come!

A week late then, but happy birthday dude!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

well he would be correct in that some diseases like cancer and alzheimers have gone up, though mostly due to the fact that people are more likly to live long enough to contract them. basicly diseases that are heavily influenced by age.

Not to mention that these deseases are now also better known and we have gotten a lot better at diagnosing them.

Then there's also the fact that record keeping has gone up quite a lot.

I've read an article some time ago by some professor that stated that there is no reason to believe that "natural cancers" are more prevalent today then 50.000 years ago.

It's just that today, we know what they are, we are better at identifying them and we keep track of the cases. It just looks or sounds as if they are more frequent, but they really aren't.

But there are indeed some types of cancers that are more common today then before, due to human activity.

For example, people living in cities are far more likely to contract a lung cancer, simply due to the pollution.

He drew a parallell in the article with the amount of crime going on. Today, there is actually less crime overal in western secural democracies.

But we hear of a lot more crime everyday....
This is not because there is more crime. It is because of the internet. Today, everybody is a "reporter". Facebook, twitter, forums, blogs, news sites both big and small,...

It's not there are more cases overall. It's just that a much larger portion gets reported about.

 

[loveofourlord]

Not to mention that these deseases are now also better known and we have gotten a lot better at diagnosing them.

Then there's also the fact that record keeping has gone up quite a lot.

I've read an article some time ago by some professor that stated that there is no reason to believe that "natural cancers" are more prevalent today then 50.000 years ago.

It's just that today, we know what they are, we are better at identifying them and we keep track of the cases. It just looks or sounds as if they are more frequent, but they really aren't.

But there are indeed some types of cancers that are more common today then before, due to human activity.

For example, people living in cities are far more likely to contract a lung cancer, simply due to the pollution.

He drew a parallell in the article with the amount of crime going on. Today, there is actually less crime overal in western secural democracies.

But we hear of a lot more crime everyday....
This is not because there is more crime. It is because of the internet. Today, everybody is a "reporter". Facebook, twitter, forums, blogs, news sites both big and small,...

It's not there are more cases overall. It's just that a much larger portion gets reported about.

well the cancers that increase are like prostate, and breast, due to mutations acumilatling that damage the repair mechanism, wich of course means the older you are the more likly it is the wrong thing will break heh. Again it's due to age, people are more likly to live to the age where cancer chances go up, as opposed to dying before these kind of cancers become common.

 

[AV1611VET]

(trouble finding the right word)

Acumen?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's just that today, we know what they are, we are better at identifying them and we keep track of the cases. It just looks or sounds as if they are more frequent, but they really aren't.

It could just be that God's plan for Mr. Darwin was to find the cure for cancer; but instead he turned his back on his God-given talent and pursued a Godless course.