Bluejay

Hi, Snow. By the rules of empirical epistemology, Roundearth is correct: the burden of proof is not on him; it’s on us. Roundearth’s position is a status quo argument: i.e. his argument is that current knowledge is all there is, and anything that current knowledge does not support should be treated as non-existent. So, by the rules of empirical epistemology, his worldview does not require supporting evidence, but ours does. And, this is perfectly justified: his argument is just the null hypothesis, so it is upheld by default each time our argument fails to find supporting evidence. It may seem unfair that we have to do all the work, but this is fully consistent with the epistemology, and there is no double standard. However, he errs in trying to claim the benefits of being the null hypothesis, while not accepting the consequences. If he argues that the burden of proof is yours, then he also accepts that the power of proof is yours. That is, your “hypothesis” can (in principle) be demonstrated; but his cannot. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I’m sure you’ve heard that before? Unfortunately for Roundearth, the only support for atheism that can be found (even in principle) is an absence of evidence for God. So, atheism can only be regarded as the tentative conclusion arising from the observation that no evidence for God has been found yet.

Hi, Roundearth. All points read, understood and accepted. ----- Again, all points read, understood and accepted. ----- Here is where I think your argument fails. You are accustomed to debating naturalistic topics, and you seem well-equipped to do so. However, when debating supernatural topics, the law of identity simply becomes a fancy way of substituting the word “existent” for the word “natural,” thereby using sleight of hand to make a semantic argument appear substantive. Here is my explanation: What your argument shows is that supernatural beings do not fit the definition of “natural being.” Point read, understood and accepted. However, you then state that failure to meet this criterion leads to the conclusion of “non-existence.” Essentially, you have required “naturalness” as a pre-requisite for “existence.” However, from the perspective of the supernaturalist, this is a significant redefinition of the word “existence.” Let’s agree that, in order to win this debate, you must demonstrate that God does not exist by a definition of “existence” that could feasibly include supernatural entities. Otherwise, all you are saying is that God is not a natural being, and that is, frankly, a boring and pathetic argument.

Hi, Omega. Yes they do. That's what keeps them well-behaved until they turn 2. The veil hits on the second birthday, which explains why the good behavior disappears.

Hi, Elphaba Thanks for the pep talk! Of course they are. It's free speech. People might not want to listen, or they might not believe you, but that's another issue. Literary license: please do not take literally. ----- I think the whole country would be in for life: complaining is what Americans do best! ----- I've tried it before. Everybody is convinced that the injustices I face are insignificant, and I become instantly unwelcome in any conversation where I try to talk about them.

Hi, Blackmarch. How so? ----- My experience tells me that level of development has nothing to do with it.

Hi, Annamaureen. I feel like I'm being told this in church all the time, and it irritates me immensely. Given the discrimination issues in the USA today, I am also terrified to speak up about it, because white men aren't allowed to complain about poor treatment. I have been in conversations with women in the Church who could interpret anything I said as stemming from a deep feeling that I am superior to women. So, I don't talk a lot when these topics come up: but I have walked out of numerous Sunday School classes and Elder's Quorum meetings because it irritates me so much. So, basically, I'm an emotional wreck.

Hi, RipplecutBuddha. At the risk of sounding apostate, I always get very upset when I hear people say this in Sunday School. It's much easier to fool a person's "spiritual senses" than it is to fool their physical senses. In my personal experience, spirituality has proven itself to be very unreliable, and has led to a number of emotional disasters for me (I was a horrible senior companion on my mission). Reason and the five senses have served me much better, so much so that I am left completely uncertain as to whether I've ever even felt the Spirit at all. I took up science in university, and am currently working on a doctorate in the biological sciences. Science does wonders for my confidence (which is still quite low by your standards, I'm sure), and the wounds from the spiritual phase of my younger life have not healed enough yet for me to be sure I can trust my spirituality anymore.

I thought it was saying there will be a general lack of men: as in, all the men will die in all the wars that are supposed to happen.

Hi, Bini. Even after people hear my name, they never consider the possibility that I am actually blue. It surprises them everytime. (I'm not being serious, by the way: I am not actually blue).

I think the first line (the premise) needs to be explained a bit. Girls = Time X Money Why multiplication? Why not addition?

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law]Godwin's law[/link]: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

You know what one of my pet peeves is? Mildew on the shower curtains because somebody didn't spread them out to dry properly.

Hi, Traveler. I am not having trouble understanding what you are saying: I am having trouble understanding why you are saying it. Threepercent began this thread thinking that the evolution of humans from primates was the same process as the resurrection and celestialization of the human body after death. How does talking about some other type of evolution help with this particular issue?

Hi, Jamie. I've actually heard the thing about the devil controlling the waters before, but it was never all that widespread in my experience. I personally like the water. However, when I was a teenager, a Mexican co-worker told me that the Devil touches the water after midnight, and that it was thus a bad idea for me to take a shower when I went home that night. Does anybody know if this is a typical belief in the Catholic church?

Hi, Traveler. Did you mean that in the opposite way: "evolution is an accurate description of aging"? ----- In order for a process to be considered the same as the Theory of Evolution, it must include both mutation and natural selection. In the process you are referring to, there is no natural selection, so it is a different process. If this process were the same process as the Theory of Evolution, it would proceed in this manner: Cell divides.During division, a beneficial mutation occurs in one daughter cell.The daughter cell outcompetes other cells, and proliferates better, passing on the mutation.The daughter cell line displaces other cells.The other cell lines adapt to different niches to avoid competition.It's an intriguing idea, but I have never heard any evidence that this occurs.

Hi, Misshalfway. This quote makes me laugh. Pretty small target audience, isn't it?

Hi, Justice. I'm beginning to wonder if you and I are even having the same conversation. This is the best place for that. ---- This is going to make me cry: we've been through this already! The definitions you brought up are not relevant to this discussion. Here is the first line from Threepercent's OP: From the very beginning, Threepercent established what type of evolution he was talking about: the type that has to do with the history of the earth. If you start using "evolution" to mean something other than this in the middle of the conversation, you are guilty of equivocation. The only reason for a person to equivocate is to save face while they go back on something they said earlier.

Hi, Seeker7. Anybody can act in God's name if they are authorized and empowered by God to do so. As God's Son, Jesus was thus authorized to serve in the capacity of Creator and Lord. This was His calling. But, even Jesus eventually had to come to Earth in a mortal body in order to be exalted. ----- So, let's pretend I'm 5'10" and white (I actually am). If my goal is to become as good at basketball as Michael Jordan, whose fault is it when I fail? Is it Michael Jordan's fault for being so good? But, if you think it's hard to be like Michael Jordan... The purpose of the Plan of Salvation is to make us into Gods. Seriously: Gods!! So, it shouldn't surprise you that the standards are impossibly high. Gods cannot simply be "poofed" out of nothing: they must progress from the merest spark of life until they mature as gods. God does not have the power to violate this principle: removing someone's free will also removes their ability to harness the power of Godhood. How could you be a God if you don't even have the ability to make choices for yourself? ----- What you are calling a "punishment for sin" is more accurately described as a "consequence of sin." It's not like getting grounded for drinking your daddy's beer: it's like getting a hangover the next morning. See, compare your struggle to become like God to a roadtrip. If you don't follow the directions, getting lost is nobody's fault but your own. So, how can it be considered a punishment? It's just a consequence of your own actions. The beauty of the Plan of Salvation is that the Atonement aids those who are on the path already in reaching the end of the path, which would otherwise be impossible for them to reach. Furthermore, the Plan provides a way to show those who are not on the path how to get back to the path, but they still have to actually go back on their own (remember the free will thing?).

Hi, Threepercent. What does this contribute to the discussion?

Hi, Justice. I'm not certain how defining terms fits this statement. I would think it is the opposite. But, not when you settle on the most ambiguous definition of the term available! There are two things that need to be distinguished in this thread, but y'all insist on using language that makes it impossible to do so, despite it being one of Traveler's pet peeves! My original complaint was that Traveler went through a lot of effort to differentiate the two meanings of "evolution," then blurred them together again in by using the term in the vague sense that encompasses both meanings. I argued for a more specific usage for the term, and you supported the generic definition again. That's why I got onto you: it was nothing personal. ----- Rereading, I can see how it sounds like I said this. I don't think you do have a hidden agenda: you seem a decent, upstanding, and intelligent person, and I hope I haven't offended you. My only complaint is directly against the definition you put forward. ----- Agreed. But, the definition you offered was the definition that led to Threepercent's misunderstanding in the first place. When you define "evolution" to mean something simple like "change," that's what causes people like Threepercent to say that resurrection and biological evolution are the same process. I'm strongly against the definition you and Traveler used, because it creates more confusion than it resolves. I'm trying to make the case that Threepercent is mistaken about something I accept as a correct principle: but, I can't defend a principle when everybody wants to point out that his point was semantically correct, even though the semantics is not what I'm questioning. ----- Maybe it's time for me to end this discussion about definitions: can we at least agree that the Theory of Evolution and resurrection are not the same process?

Hi, Justice. I never said that resurrection doesn't fit a definition of the word "evolution." But, this thread is not about the word evolution: it is about a specific process that is referred to as "evolution," and why Threepercent thinks it works the same way as the resurrection. If I say, "Bert is a funny man," I am not talking about everybody who is referred to as "Bert," am I? Rather, I'm talking about a specific person named Bert. Referring to a dictionary to point out all the various definitions of "evolution" is like referring to a phone book to point out all the other people in there named "Bert": how, exactly, does it help? In fact, it's precisely the reason for Threepercent's confusion in the first place. There are two concepts here that need to be distinguished. Allowing them all to float around using the same name is only going to facilitate misunderstandings like Threepercent's.

Hi, Traveler. We seem to be in full agreement here. I have no problems with your semantic approach to differentiating generic "evolution" and "Theory of Evolution." ----- This is what I object to. You provided a beautiful exposition on the differences between various meanings of a word, but do not differentiate them in your own writing. Aging and growing are not "biological evolution.” They are “biological,” and they fit the colloquial usage of “evolution,” but they are not “biological evolution,” and it’s completely inappropriate to address them as such. Aging and growing are part of “ontogeny,” which is studied by an entirely separate field of study from evolutionary biology (i.e., developmental biology). (However, there is such a thing as evolutionary developmental biology--- you’ve heard of “evo-devo,” I’m sure?---that addresses the evolution of developmental processes). The term "biological evolution" refers specifically to "phylogeny," or the evolution of populations of organisms (including the emergence of new species by accumulating divergence between populations). This is the sense of the term used by theistic evolutionists when we say we believe man evolved from apes. This is a fundamentally different phenomenon from ontogeny, which is clearly the proper description for the glorification of our resurrected bodies. The direct implication of the OP is that people who believe that humans evolved from primates also believe that the same process of evolution is responsible for the creation of resurrected humans. This is false, because we do not believe that individuals evolve. Proposing “evolutionary resurrectionism” simply introduces equivocation on our own terminology, particularly when the term “resurrection” already suits the process just fine. ----- Well, I don't disagree with this in principle. But, I do know a lot of scientists...

Hi, Justice. And, as I said in my last post: communication trumps semantics. What, exactly, does this bring to the discussion? What difference does it make how many different things the term “evolution” can refer to? In the end, are all the different things that “evolution” refers to the same thing? No, they are not. These words are homonyms, not synonyms. It’s the same concept as knowing two people named “Bert”: they are not the same person simply because their name is the same. Threepercent directed his initial comment to those who believe that God created man via evolution. Those who believe God created man via evolution believe that God created man via biological evolution. He equated this with the resurrection of the body to its glorified state. Thus, from the beginning, the intended meaning of the word “evolution” was established. The correct rebuttal is to show him that the resurrection is not the same as biological evolution, not to explain to him that the word “evolution” is a semantically appropriate description of the resurrection.

Hi, Traveler. I disagree very strongly with this. It is precisely because the religious "nut cases" think the term "evolution" means something like what you are espousing that they are considered "nut cases" by the scientific community, in the first place. Well, it's one of the more prominent reasons, anyway. The last thing the evolution debate needs is one more usage of the term "evolution." The religious community invented its own word---"resurrection"---and there is not enough to be gained from semantic purification to override the vast damage it would do to communication in the discussion. In debates and discourse, communication trumps etymology: so, regardless of the semantic correctness of the term "evolution" in whatever context, allowing it to be simultaneously used for multiple different meanings will not contribute in anyway to the progress of the discussion. Invariably, the discussion will simply become about words, and we'll never get around to discussing the actual substance of the debate. Biological evolution and resurrection are simply not analogous in any meaningful way. If someone wishes to start a discussion about biological evolution, then it is a gesture of good faith to not use different definitions of the term during the discussion.

Hi, Rameumptum That's a good point: if His being related to me is not demeaning to God, why should my being related to a slime mold be so demeaning to me?