Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

So that's why you've been sluggish in this so-called "debate." I haven't goaded you and berated you and insulted you enough!That's it.You crazy old Calvinist Baptist woman. You are a real trip. I've never talked to someone as crazy as your sorry ass.Psychics are demonic? Electric storms are evidence of the Universal Mind? Where do you get these goofy ideas?And don't call me "teach"!

Sorry. I was joking. (bad joke).ABE: However, I was serious about the spiritual autobiography. You should try it.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-17-2006 09:42 AM

I thought it funny, my grouping you with Augustine, of all people. I can't imagine two people more dissimilar. Ha!

I have a problem with this. I consider the view of the average person--say, me--to be similar to the man who took the wrong job by mistake. Yes, I have been "told," but I have also been told many other things that suggest the exact opposite. I've been told that we evolved, for example. Who to believe? In other words, my foolishness, if such it is, is an innocent mistake.

I appreciate the distinction you are making about the difference betweeen a joke about one's personality or experiences and a joke about one's serious beliefs not shared by the joker.I'll try to be more sensitive to that issue. Actually, the joke, such as it was, was supposed to be about your debating style and your "fiery temperament" when "goaded"--which I enjoy, as I mentioned in the past, I think.Just keep in mind that I do not (and never did) have any intention of insulting you or your beliefs. On the contrary.Sometimes my comments are too spontaneous (and flippant).ABE: added "and flippant."This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-17-2006 10:17 AM

Yes, in a debate. Go ahead and give me hell. If I'm a fool, I need to know about it. You can even get personal if you want to and talk about what a pathetic individual I truly am. It's rare and also interesting."friend"--I like that word. One has so few friends.ABE: edited a la Faith's method.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-17-2006 05:07 PM

delete.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-18-2006 01:41 PM

deleteThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-18-2006 02:03 PM

deleteThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-18-2006 01:40 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-18-2006 01:40 PM

deleteThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-18-2006 03:52 PM

deleteThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-18-2006 03:52 PM

I was just following a train of thought, trying to see what all evolution had to include. Consciousness is a great mystery. No one knows what it is or how it might have evolved. We can see brains getting bigger among the hominids.The problem with consciousness is that it's a private experience, and private experiences are not conducive to the scientific method.I don't know much about "theistic evolutionists," how they might reconcile the apparent cruelty of nature with the goodness of God, since theistic evolutionists couldn't, I would think, believe in a Fall. The point was to show the ridiculousness of claiming that all the human brain is is a special kind of computer-like algorhythm. Moving the eggs around according to a set of instructions is what computers do electronically. So the instructions would include rules like, if egg-carton slot #4 is empty, then egg-carton slot #323 had to be full, and so on. That's what an algorhythm for a computer says too, only in a very elaborate way. Not that I know anything about computers, but I think I picked up his drift. I do not. Neither does the author I quoted. There's a well-known test, called the Turing test, which says that if you talk (say, through e-mail)to something, not knowing if it's a person or computer, if after awhile you can't tell the difference, and if it's a computer you are talking to, that means that the computer is intelligent in the human sense and so perhaps conscious. Turing back in the 50s predicted that once they had computer with a large enough memory, the computer would pass the test. Turing predicted the computer would have to contain 128 megabytes. That size is nothing these days. They have far larger ones, but no computers yet are speculating on the meaning of life or the "formal purpose" of human beings as far as I know.In other words, I was just running through some ideas on this thread, no real conclusions.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-20-2006 10:10 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-20-2006 10:12 AM

How can you deny it? Didn't you see the movie "The Ten Commandments"? This god was the god of this tribe of Hebrew goat-herders. He lived up in the mountains. Moses went to see him.Faith, I've got to do a chore. Be back in about 45 minutes.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-17-2006 01:34 PM

That's not the way I heard it. I heard that these old parts of the Bible were written back before monotheism developed. These different tribes had different gods, and these gods were in competition with each other. Yahweh was in competition with gods like Baal. Then later, somebody came up with the idea of monotheism and they added the parts of the Bible, such as Genesis, that make Yahweh into the Creator.1Kings 18:21: When he says, "if Yahweh be God," he's asking which is the most powerful.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-17-2006 02:40 PM

Some parts of the OT are older than others. Genesis is not one of the very old ones, I heard. Psalms is very old. Exodus very old. They added Genesis later. Is that not a telltale sign? They didn't re-write the scriptures probably. There are all these signs that say that this was a tribal God originally. It was a mountain God. He tended to the Hebrews. He doesn't mention the Gentiles at all. Moses went up and talked to him. He has all these detailed instructions about this "ark" thing he was supposed to make. I've been reading about it. Does that sound like the omni-everything God to you?