TheNaturalist
Joined: 05/23/2006
Posts: 128

Recent Comments by TheNaturalist
Matters of Faith
01/17/2008 11:55:58 AM
bygracethrufaith said:

"I am not really all THAT well studied concerning Darwin and his theories (evolution was not 'required' when I was in school, therefore, they barely touched on it and that's been a long time ago), tho I know enough to know who he was....and of course have seen a few of his quotes over the years as points of arguements as well as agreements. I know most Christians despise him. I don't. Very intelligent guy. "

I wish more people had this kind of attitude about scientific questions. Whether or not God ultimately created life is a "Matter of Faith" (right on topic for this blog). Whether or not animals (including humans) change over time as a result of natural selection is a scientific question. Maybe we should have a another blog called "Matters of Science". It would probably get fewer posts :-)
Matters of Faith
01/17/2008 09:56:55 AM
bygracethrufaith said:

"He didn't create all of the different races of people in the garden of eden.....different races EVOLVED. So why would we believe that the animals/creatures/plants/etc. have not "evolved" as well."

Jaydubya said:

"Things do "evolve" and by that I mean change. Look at horses. They are taller, longer and wider than described centuries ago. Man looks different. We are taller also."

Charles Darwin said:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Matters of Faith
01/16/2008 01:38:48 AM
The naturalist, J. B. S. Haldane, was asked by a cleric about what he might infer about the Creator, based on his wide ranging study of life.

Haldane supposedly replied the the creator had "an inordinate fondness for beetles" based on the then current count of beetle species at around 400,000

The modern estimate is between 5 and 8 million species of beetles. Two by two. On the ark.
Matters of Faith
07/13/2007 08:12:26 PM
Berean said:

"RomeGaSir, I understand where your coming from. I think that's why the bible say's for us to lean not on our own understanding. IM a lot like you, I don't understand it all. But I do believe it all."

I've heard people say stuff like that a lot. I wonder what it could possibly mean to "believe" something you don't understand. Suppose a person doesn't understand french and you hand them a piece of paper with a french sentence on it and ask them "do you believe this?". Then they say "Oh, yes, I don't understand it but i believe every word of it". That seems like a meaningless statement to me.
The Watercooler
05/17/2007 02:39:34 PM
failedbelle,

Don't miss Asamov's point....he's saying that IQ tests are measuring the wrong thing. If you score 80 on an IQ test, that's a good indicator of ACADEMIC performance, but not much else. That's why Asamov couldn't fix his own car :-)

A good example of this, in my opinion , is the hope scholarship. There's plenty of money in there for acedemic colleges, but where's the money for training electricians and plumbers?
The Watercooler
05/15/2007 01:03:47 PM
here's a story by Asimov that makes Murray's point:

What Is Intelligence, Anyway?
Isaac Asimov


What is intelligence, anyway? When I was in the army, I received the kind of aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours they made a big fuss over me. (It didn't mean anything. The next day I was still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.)


All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so too. Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with intellectual bents similar to mine?


For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car.


Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and I'd be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.


Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: "Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand. The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?"


Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers. Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, "Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them." Then he said smugly, "I've been trying that on all my customers today." "Did you catch many?" I asked. "Quite a few," he said, "but I knew for sure I'd catch you." "Why is that?" I asked. "Because you're so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn't be very smart."


And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.
The Watercooler
05/15/2007 12:46:06 PM
failedbelle,

Charles Murray has an interesting theory about why you can't get a decent contractor: we try to send absolutely everybody to college. It's not hard to find doctor that qualified and does a good job, but it's near impossible to find a good plumber. We've created a society that frowns on you if you don't get a four year education and get get a "white collar" job. There is absolutly no shame in being an excellent plumber and it's a lot harder than getting a degree in french literature. There are a lot of people getting french literature degrees who ought to be first class plumbers because we consider people failures if they don't go to a four year collage.
The Watercooler
05/14/2007 07:56:37 PM
DaleJrFan ,

Wow what a story. We need to start slapping employers who knowingly hire illegals with jail time.
Matters of Faith
05/14/2007 07:50:22 PM
Sorry, im on vacation in Hawaii, so i missed that one. I'll try to find in on the internet.
Catoosa pastor arrested in prostitution sting
05/14/2007 07:47:45 PM
nurse137:

"TheNaturalist.........yes what he did IS wrong.........thats why it is against the law!!!!!!!! and there is a difference in having a healthy sex drive and commiting illegal sex acts. So I guess since some men choose to have sex with underage children we should over look it and not judge or shame them because they just have a sex drive."

There are lots of things that were once illegal that are not wrong. Like helping slaves get to freedom. So, I just can't agree with your statement that all illegal things are wrong. I'm also really tired of the child molestation red herring that's always trotted out in conversations about sex and law. Sex between two consenting adults in exchange for money is qualitativly different than raping a child. A child isn't fully developed mentally so he/she has no power to agree to sex. Every case of an adult having sex with a child is rape. Second, it's been show that sexual activity too early does damage to a person. Those are two very good reasons for child moelstation to be illegal. Child molestation is totally separate from adult-adult prostitution and should be treated differently by the law.

I'm not even saying that prostitution is good. I'm saying that it is going to occur and a regulated sex industry is better than an unregulated sex industry. We have techonologies that can mitigate the ill effects of illegal prostitution like disease and violence. Is it more moral to allow disease to spread and violence to grow unchecked?