Christian/Creation PB followers page 11

[karatepig]

Oh, no, I didn't think you were picking on me at all.

I think the human mind, whether focusing on theology or science, will always interpret data in a way that fits our belief system and makes sense to us. It's just what we do, finding patterns and links where there are none. A perfect example of that is the monkey face on the moon or, more recently, Mickey Mouse on Mercury.

I think it happens in many religions (coincidence or unknown natural cause interpreted as a miracle) but also in science. Think how high cholesterol levels were tied in to heart attacks, even though the relationship just isn't there.

In other words, I think we all make leaps of faith when it comes to dealing with our lives. Some of them are reasonable and some are pretty ridiculous. But I don't think it's exclusive to the religious community.

I won't argue that. However, if one is to presume that science and faith go hand in hand via a non-literal interpretation of the bible, one question comes to mind. Why? Why the faith component, when the universe works just fine without it? Why must a god exist? Nothing in physics thus far demands the existence of a god. There are gaps in our knowledge, but fewer every day. The same method of scientific inquiry has proved its' mettle time and time again. The last, big "gap" that I hear creationists refer to is before the beginning. That is, "where did the matter and energy that formed the singularity (the point in space from which came the unfortunately-named Big Bang) come from?" When a physicist says "I don't know", the creationist will say "AHA!" As if that lack of knowledge invalidates all of science. But creationists have no better answer to the question "where did god come from?". In fact,they have worse. Am I really supposed to swallow the no beginning crap? The universe is a marvelously complex, IMPRECISE, and fundamental RANDOM place. When you begin to get into quantum physics, you realized how hap-hazard "reality" is. Hell, did you know that particles actually pop in and out of existence all the time in the form of matter and anti-matter, only to be destroyed in almost the same instant? The supposed void of space contains unfathomable amounts of energy. Energy can convert to matter. There's the mechanism for "something from nothing" right there. And that is just the tip of the iceberg!
I understand that I probably won't sway you, but I, for one, find it unbelievable that any one entity could invent every nuance of the universe, then create it all using some king of u=inherent, sourceless power (because it had a source, then it would have defining properties, and, thus, limitations.)

[RitaRose]

Why? Why the faith component, when the universe works just fine without it? Why must a god exist? Nothing in physics thus far demands the existence of a god.)

There is no perceived need for black pigs. Pink pigs and white pigs do the job quite well. For that matter, there's no specific need for pigs in general. Sure, they have a role in the world, but we could just as easily eat cows and chickens and fish and do quite well. The world does not demand their existence. And yet they exist.

The one failing of science (often attributed to theology) is that there must be a reason, a "need", for the existence of everything, and every action must have a compelling reason.

When you begin to get into quantum physics, you realized how hap-hazard "reality" is. Hell, did you know that particles actually pop in and out of existence all the time in the form of matter and anti-matter, only to be destroyed in almost the same instant? The supposed void of space contains unfathomable amounts of energy. Energy can convert to matter. There's the mechanism for "something from nothing" right there. And that is just the tip of the iceberg!
I understand that I probably won't sway you, but I, for one, find it unbelievable that any one entity could invent every nuance of the universe, then create it all using some king of u=inherent, sourceless power (because it had a source, then it would have defining properties, and, thus, limitations.)

And yet quantum physics makes sense?

[Grok]

There are gaps in our knowledge, but fewer every day.

There are vast expanses of deep interstellar empty space in our knowledge and they grow larger every day.

[Grok]

All I was saying is that their economy was "give support, receive support", and our current economy is "make products, receive products."

Up until about 30,000 B.C. (as far as we know) there wasn't much capital to become a capitalist. The earliest pottery dates to around 30,000 BC, and the earliest farming evidence we have dates to around 25,000 BC.

Once capital equipment is invented such as a fishing net, people can become more productive in certain areas of the economy and you can have a greater division of labor and larger societies which allow you to kill off competition for your food. Thus we see the extinction of other species around that time like the Neanderthals.

[Uncephalized]

Yes, it is an interesting topic and I was contemplating it as I went to sleep last night and again this morning.

For division of labor, I surmise that labor was chiefly divided among four different groups: children, elders, able-bodied men and able-bodied women. A further more refined division of labor would occur within the women and children as they performed most of the work.

Let's assume an average tribe size was fifty people and half of those are male. Now, let's assume roughly 10% of the males are considered "elders" and perform other duties besides hunting. We can also assume a certain percentage of the males are going to be children who are too young to hunt. So let's assume we have twenty-five males, three of which are elders and five of which are young children. And for the sake of argument, let's assume one able-bodied male is sick or incapacitated in some way who is left to guard the women with the elders while the rest are hunting. That leaves sixteen able-bodied men to gather enough protein for fifty tribesmen each day.

Since not all hunting is going to be successful, the sixteen lean men divide themselves into four groups of four men who head off in different directions to gather protein while the fatty women gather carbohydrate. One group heads to the river for fishing, one group sets traps and checks traps for small game and the other two groups look for larger game. At the end of the day a dozen fish were caught, a couple of rabbits were trapped, and a porcupine was speared. One group was unsuccessful at catching anything.

Now, let's consider an anarco-communist perspective of the same tribe. Of the sixteen able-bodied men left to hunt the protein for the rest of the tribe, one decides he doesn't want to hunt and wants to become a social worker instead. So he decides he will become the socialist cook. The others, thinking that hunting could be harmful to their health think this is a good idea, and so one becomes the socialist story teller who entertains the tribe and tells the story of the day's hunt. Another decides he wants to become the socialist central planner. His job is to evenly divide the meat for the day to ensure that the elderly and sick and foodless people of the tribe get a fair share. Then yet another decides that he wants to be a socialist fire keeper. His job is to collect wood and start the fires and make sure there is always fire available for the tribe. Then another decides he wants to become the socialist teacher. His job is to educate the children about how to be a good socialist man when they grow up. Then another decides he wants to be a socialist artist. His job is to paint pictures on cave walls of the hunt to entertain the villagers. And so on, and so on until there is only one man left who couldn't think of something to do besides the dangerous job of hunting.

So in this fantasy-land anarcho-socialist tribe the last remaining able-bodied independent productive male is left to do all the dangerous hunting for all the totally unproductive socialists in the tribe. After one day of this they are all starving and start blaming the single hunter for not doing is job well enough. The single hunter decides he doesn't like doing all the hunting for everyone else so he protests. Then the socialist central planner gets the socialist cop to enforce the socialist plan and uses force and violence to force the single hunter to hunt. All socialist societies result in force in violence because of course nobody wants to do the dangerous work.

So the next day, the hunter goes off and never returns to his socialist tribe which is no longer an anarchy and is now ruled by violent socialist dictators who are starving to death. And socialism, tyranny, oppression, and totalitarianism will have to wait another 25,000 years...

This lovely story is such a ridiculous simplification of human relations I'm not even sure where to start. You think young, able-bodied men in a tribal society with thousands of years of hunting culture are going to just decide to up and stop hunting because "it's dangerous"? Think about the social pressure one would feel from parents, friends, and most importantly POTENTIAL MATES if one started acting like a coward and stopped contributing meat to the group. Loss of prestige, loss of social standing, loss of mating opportunities, point-blank. If you got lazy enough you might even get booted out of the group for not contributing. These societies have evolved defense mechanisms (shaming, ritual punishments, religious strictures, and ostracism, among others) to prevent exactly this problem, precisely BECAUSE, left unchecked, it IS a problem.

Being laughed at by women you want as mates is probably the single most-motivating negative experience a young man could feel. There is no way a majority of males would spontaneously decide to endure that, and give up the advantages of being seen as big men and providers by participating in hunts. Also, how could you possibly force someone to hunt for food? Any competent hunter is also a competent tracker and woodsman. You can't follow a hunter around with a spear and enforce your will, or you'll interfere with the hunt and guarantee failure. And at that point, wouldn't it be easier just to help with the hunt anyway? And if you tell someone "oi, go hunt or we'll kill you," leaving aside the fact that such coercion is simply not very realistic in a group with close family ties, since the main motivation is a sense of obligation to family and tribe, the oppressed individual can simply leave--there being no fences to hold him, and his knowledge and skills being sufficient to ensure a reasonably high chance of survival on his own. But it's so unlikely to ever come to that in the first place that it's almost not even worth speculating about. The only time it becomes economical and pragmatic to oppress and violently coerce people on any large scale is when their livelihoods are tied to a certain piece of land, they don't have the skills to survive on their own because they are too specialized or rely on artificial environmental conditions for their skills to apply, and it is possible to hoard and restrict access to food or services. All of these conditions really only apply in agricultural societies.

Wilton also never even implied that anyone was a "full-time" social worker or teacher or anything (nor did I). Those are ROLES that can be filled by whoever feels the need to fill them, when they are needed. A man who sits around proclaiming himself the tribe's conflict resolver is going to get laughed at and will quickly either give up his delusions of grandeur or receive escalating social repercussions until he does. What will more likely happen is that two men will get in a fight while out on a hunt, and the cool-headed, smooth talker in the group will step in and calm them down. If this becomes a pattern, people will notice that that guy is particularly good at resolving disputes and will start seeking him out for advice and bringing problems to him because they recognize his ability. He doesn't get named the Official Tribal Negotiator, he just fills that role organically. If he's not around someone else will do the same thing, as needed, because everyone in the group understands all the basic needs of the group and how to competently address them, even if there are some people in the group who are better at a given skill than others or who prefer to do X over Y when they have the option. It's nothing at all like the modern division of labor or even a pre-industrial type where you have farriers and carpenters and cobblers and tailors and one doesn't know how to do a fraction of what the others can. It's more like a soccer team, where every member understands all the rules, and can fill in for any position in a pinch, but generally they take the spot they are best at because that makes the team the most successful.

Also, your assertion that hunting men are the only major protein source for HG societies is not true AFAIK. Women in such groups are often responsible for trapping, fishing and harvesting small game, insects, fish, eggs, nuts, and so on--often supplying the majority of animal protein as well as the majority of calories. If it weren't for gangs of men from rival groups coming in to rape and steal women, there might not be a need for men in most such groups at all, outside of breeding. Not that men don't contribute--but they're hardly the lynchpins of nutrition that you paint them as. They're probably more essential as deterrents to attack from other, non-related males (which is still a very important role!). The fact that they supply less food, on average, than the women do means that if they were to disappear there would actually be more food for the women and children rather than less.

[breadsauce]

Thinking that we were once apes shows a misunderstanding of how evolution works. We did not descend from apes. We shared a common ancestor. That's all.

NONE of MY ancestors were common. How rude!

[cori93437]

.snip.

I always love it when you step up to the plate and make SENSE of the nonsense Unceph.

The Passion of the Benny Hill - YouTube

You, dear Darth, are the awesomest of awesomesauces!

[Hoss2626]

I too am mostly a lurker at this point.

To answer the OP, I am a Christian who takes the Bible at face value (i.e, a literal Adam and Eve) and I follow the PB lifestyle.

To continue the off-topic side discussion:

It seems to me that science is really good at answering the question of what and how; but at some point all scientific inquiry eventually must lead to "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is its nature."

For me, this is where faith answers the question of why, where science can no longer explain the how and what: "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is the nature God has placed in it."

As an intellectual, I have often wondered about the orgin of God, where did he come from, what kind of being is he? I am pretty sure that I cannot truly grasp the answer, but I still wonder. What I do know is who God is (through his son Jesus), his love and his justice. And I find that pretty cool.

[Call Me Twitchy]

I once said this in a Bible Study: "Whether you believe we evolved into what we are, or God made us, we were all born naked and without any of the crap which is destroying our lives." Until those bulky casts people call shoes fuse to our feel and become a living, feeling part of our bodies, they are a hindrance to our health. I hate shoes. The end.

I stand along side you, Peach.

[wiltondeportes]

Oh, no, I didn't think you were picking on me at all.

I think the human mind, whether focusing on theology or science, will always interpret data in a way that fits our belief system and makes sense to us. It's just what we do, finding patterns and links where there are none. A perfect example of that is the monkey face on the moon or, more recently, Mickey Mouse on Mercury.

I think it happens in many religions (coincidence or unknown natural cause interpreted as a miracle) but also in science. Think how high cholesterol levels were tied in to heart attacks, even though the relationship just isn't there.

In other words, I think we all make leaps of faith when it comes to dealing with our lives. Some of them are reasonable and some are pretty ridiculous. But I don't think it's exclusive to the religious community.

It seems to me that science is really good at answering the question of what and how; but at some point all scientific inquiry eventually must lead to "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is its nature."

For me, this is where faith answers the question of why, where science can no longer explain the how and what: "(fill in the blank) has this property because that is the nature God has placed in it."

As an intellectual, I have often wondered about the orgin of God, where did he come from, what kind of being is he? I am pretty sure that I cannot truly grasp the answer, but I still wonder. What I do know is who God is (through his son Jesus), his love and his justice. And I find that pretty cool.

So, we don't know everything..............therefore god?