Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 9 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Non-realism about God
8 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 10:09AM #81
caduceus
Posts: 1,274

Mar 11, 2010 -- 9:14AM, Ken wrote:


Mar 11, 2010 -- 8:49AM, caduceus wrote:


Although minor variations are evident due to genetic selection, the origin of domestic animals and plants remains a mystery



No, it doesn't. Only jaded, useless people waste their time dreaming up mysteries where there aren't any.



References of problem solved?

“We live at the level of our language. Whatever we can articulate we can imagine or explore. All you have to do to educate a child is leave him alone and teach him to read. The rest is brainwashing.”
Ellen Gilcrist
Visit my website
www.n-atlantis.com
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 10:31AM #82
Ken
Posts: 33,858

Mar 11, 2010 -- 10:09AM, caduceus wrote:


Mar 11, 2010 -- 9:14AM, Ken wrote:


Mar 11, 2010 -- 8:49AM, caduceus wrote:


Although minor variations are evident due to genetic selection, the origin of domestic animals and plants remains a mystery



No, it doesn't. Only jaded, useless people waste their time dreaming up mysteries where there aren't any.



References of problem solved?



References that there's a problem to be solved?

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 2:22PM #83
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,212

Mar 11, 2010 -- 8:49AM, caduceus wrote:

Although minor variations are evident due to genetic selection, the origin of domestic animals and plants remains a mystery: How hunter-gathers managed to select genes for serial crops for example, many generations ahead of the required characteristics becoming apparent let alone useful has always been a mystery that is seldom mentioned today. 


Namaste
AL 


The hunter gatherers didn't do the domestication, natural selection did.  Humans are messy creatures, and scattered seeds of grasses that were easy to harvest in their traditional gathering areas.  Good fruits? Even easier. They spit out the seeds of the ones that were good  again in traditional stopping areas.  As for domestic animals as soon as humans learned to protect the stupid docile ones from the wolves, the other top predator in the early Holocene, the stupid docile ones herded up in the vicinity of humans and didn't have to worry about wolves, only the humans who ate the smart aggressive ones.  


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 2:27PM #84
Christianlib
Posts: 21,847

jc,


It is doubtful any creationists will understand the differences between symbiotic relationships and domination relationships.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 4:22PM #85
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,687

Mar 5, 2010 -- 8:56AM, Kwinters wrote:

It would put belief in god on par with belief in 'justice' or 'democracy'.




 1) What is non-realism? How does this relate to the notion that god does not exist independently of people's belief in him (sic)?


 2) Why does the speaker think that we shouldn't assume that the world exists out there permanently and forever, independent from our interpretation?



1) non-realism is where the world is viewed as entirely epistemological - and ontology is not taken as a valid worldview.  What we think about stuff - is all there is and what the stuff "really is" is not a really valid question.  Cupitt starting from that view made a very reasoned account of how we could view the cultural aspects of the church in post-modern terms.


2) My answer to why he thinks that we shouldn't assume the world exists out there -- is because he is not someone who has a background in math and science and technology.  Is is strictly an artsy fartsy academic pile of stuff - and useful only to avoid the facts of objective reality.   - but he is entitled to his opinion and argued it well.


My position follows the lead of Luciano Floridi who says --



The outcome is



informational structural realism, a version of OSR supporting the ontological commitment to a view of the world as the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other.




I just see that there are subjective and culturally influenced objects like 'justice' or 'democracy' and equally views of what god might be like.  These are constructed informational objects.


Aaron Sloman has called poverty an example of a virtual machine.


However, that in no way eliminates natural informational objects - which structure physical events and then actualize from probability  what is objectively possible in the universe.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 4:26PM #86
Blü
Posts: 26,191

ncg


the world as the totality of informational  objects dynamically interacting with each other.


How, for Floridi's purposes, is 'a unit of information' defined?

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 4:34PM #87
caduceus
Posts: 1,274

Mar 11, 2010 -- 2:22PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


The hunter gatherers didn't do the domestication, natural selection did.  Humans are messy creatures, and scattered seeds of grasses that were easy to harvest in their traditional gathering areas.  Good fruits? Even easier. They spit out the seeds of the ones that were good  again in traditional stopping areas.  As for domestic animals as soon as humans learned to protect the stupid docile ones from the wolves, the other top predator in the early Holocene, the stupid docile ones herded up in the vicinity of humans and didn't have to worry about wolves, only the humans who ate the smart aggressive ones.  


 






Much as I love the rationalisation, there are problems as every biologist knows. There are quite a large number of genetic steps from grass to corn - too many for it to have happened by accident - not to mention the fact that the oldest cro magnon bones are only from 30,000 years ago.
Natural selection requires millions of years except where there's a problem and then it's quick.
We are also told that many of the grasses that are ancestors of cereal crops - where any can be found at all - are inedible and so why would they harvest them?

Where the animals are concerned you shoot yourself in the foot with the docile ones and natural selection. If this were the case, there would be no docile ones because they would not survive. You can't have it both ways?
Again this would require random genetic changes and there just is not enough time to select for the right ones. Look at a wild sheep and compare with a domestic. Look at a wild cow? they ain't docile.

As I said already, the Russians tried to change grass into corn and failed and they knew where they were going, whereas the hunter- gatherers had no idea of future crops.
Namaste
AL


 


 




“We live at the level of our language. Whatever we can articulate we can imagine or explore. All you have to do to educate a child is leave him alone and teach him to read. The rest is brainwashing.”
Ellen Gilcrist
Visit my website
www.n-atlantis.com
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 8:17PM #88
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,212

Mar 11, 2010 -- 4:34PM, caduceus wrote:

Much as I love the rationalisation, there are problems as every biologist knows.


Every biologist doesn't know.  Just the Russians.  


Mar 11, 2010 -- 4:34PM, caduceus wrote:

There are quite a large number of genetic steps from grass to corn - too many for it to have happened by accident - not to mention the fact that the oldest cro magnon bones are only from 30,000 years ago.


Damn few if you start with tesonite like the native Americans did.  And forget 30,000 years.  Domestication of plants and animals started in the early Holocene, about 12000 years ago.  


Mar 11, 2010 -- 4:34PM, caduceus wrote:

Natural selection requires millions of years except where there's a problem and then it's quick.


When you have humans involved it isn't really natural selection.  It is extremely intelligent selection.  If it is useful for humans natural selection be damned.  Humans will create the ecological niche where only the useful stuff will survive.  


Mar 11, 2010 -- 4:34PM, caduceus wrote:

We are also told that many of the grasses that are ancestors of cereal crops - where any can be found at all - are inedible and so why would they harvest them?


They wouldn't harvest them.  Ogg would chew on a bunch of grasses spitting out seeds that tasted bad.  Maybe she spit one out that tasted good, and looked for others like it.  And by the way if it was edible by humans, it wouldn't have any ancestors in the wild, they would be eaten and the extra seeds dropped.  Note most edible grasses have fairly tight seed pods.  Barley, rice, wheat, etc.  Duh. Ogg sees a tight seed pod and eats it.  Hey, it tastes good and is nutritious. Some of the seeds naturally drop off, natural grasses survive by easily distributed seeds, that is loose pods.  Ogg comes back next season and sees a bunch of the tight pods and tells her friends who eat up all of the tight seed pods spilling seeds all over.  The next season the wild grasses with loose seed pods are gone or at least banished to areas not used by humans.  Note this is only 3 growing seasons, not millions of years.   


Mar 11, 2010 -- 4:34PM, caduceus wrote:

Where the animals are concerned you shoot yourself in the foot with the docile ones and natural selection. If this were the case, there would be no docile ones because they would not survive. You can't have it both ways?


Namaste
AL



I sure can. When the docile ones are protected from predation by humans.  Certainly in the wild the herd would be aggressive, to resist predation.  But if the humans and probably their dogs, protected the herd from predation, there would be a strong selective advantage to staying near the humans.  The few they lost to feed the priests were a small price to pay for having the humans find the best pasturage and maybe even share some of that nutritions tight pod grain.  


In any group of animals there will be a range of behaviors.  When selection is unnatural, as in human assisted being useful to a human is a huge selective advantage.   Compare the number of wolves to dogs for instance.  Or the number of domestic horses compared to true wild horses (there aren't any. "Wild horses" are actually feral horses.)   


 


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2010 - 1:27AM #89
Namchuck
Posts: 12,199

Mar 11, 2010 -- 4:34PM, caduceus wrote:


Mar 11, 2010 -- 2:22PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


The hunter gatherers didn't do the domestication, natural selection did.  Humans are messy creatures, and scattered seeds of grasses that were easy to harvest in their traditional gathering areas.  Good fruits? Even easier. They spit out the seeds of the ones that were good  again in traditional stopping areas.  As for domestic animals as soon as humans learned to protect the stupid docile ones from the wolves, the other top predator in the early Holocene, the stupid docile ones herded up in the vicinity of humans and didn't have to worry about wolves, only the humans who ate the smart aggressive ones.  


 






Much as I love the rationalisation, there are problems as every biologist knows. There are quite a large number of genetic steps from grass to corn - too many for it to have happened by accident - not to mention the fact that the oldest cro magnon bones are only from 30,000 years ago.
Natural selection requires millions of years except where there's a problem and then it's quick.
We are also told that many of the grasses that are ancestors of cereal crops - where any can be found at all - are inedible and so why would they harvest them?

Where the animals are concerned you shoot yourself in the foot with the docile ones and natural selection. If this were the case, there would be no docile ones because they would not survive. You can't have it both ways?
Again this would require random genetic changes and there just is not enough time to select for the right ones. Look at a wild sheep and compare with a domestic. Look at a wild cow? they ain't docile.

As I said already, the Russians tried to change grass into corn and failed and they knew where they were going, whereas the hunter- gatherers had no idea of future crops.
Namaste
AL


 


 







 


"...too many for it to have happened by accident..."


Misapprehension number 1: It didn't happen by accident! Evolution is random mutation and non-random natural selection.


 


I can't be bothered with misapprehensions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9, and 10.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2010 - 6:14AM #90
Kwinters
Posts: 24,617

Mar 11, 2010 -- 4:22PM, newchurchguy wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 8:56AM, Kwinters wrote:

It would put belief in god on par with belief in 'justice' or 'democracy'.




 1) What is non-realism? How does this relate to the notion that god does not exist independently of people's belief in him (sic)?


 2) Why does the speaker think that we shouldn't assume that the world exists out there permanently and forever, independent from our interpretation?



1) non-realism is where the world is viewed as entirely epistemological - and ontology is not taken as a valid worldview.  What we think about stuff - is all there is and what the stuff "really is" is not a really valid question.  Cupitt starting from that view made a very reasoned account of how we could view the cultural aspects of the church in post-modern terms.


2) My answer to why he thinks that we shouldn't assume the world exists out there -- is because he is not someone who has a background in math and science and technology.  Is is strictly an artsy fartsy academic pile of stuff - and useful only to avoid the facts of objective reality.   - but he is entitled to his opinion and argued it well.






 


ncg, I really just don't see any point in replying extensive to your above posts.


 


 

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook