Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: Christianity and climate

« on: August 22, 2022, 11:07:10 AM »

Forgive my intrusion. 

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806?login=false

Top of the article. - "Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency."

https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/ 
over 14,500 signatures stating there IS a climate emergency. 

Years ago I think I posted about climate change being real and that humans were a significant contribution.  I remember a lot of kickback. 
I'm please as punch that you said

"they aren't denying that the climate is changing, nor that mankind could have something to do with it."  This is progress, and I'm grateful.  I'm looking forward to the day we have further agreement on what's going on, and that I hope you continue to investigate it from a large number of reputable sources. 

Rather than purge my post, I'm hoping someone adds it to theirs for the sake truth, honesty, and integrity.

Blessings to all regardless,

SW

2

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 31, 2020, 10:21:51 AM »

I have, and precisely so.  You have dismissed them without providing even a counter argument, only bare assertions.  You do the same above.

For example, you say "the absolute necessity of reproduction is in the shifting of alleles."  So what?  Reproduction is still the sine qua non of evolution.  Without it, alleles cannot change over time, genetic mutations do not happen in a way that leads to propagation of the species, etc.  Reproduction is not incidental to evolution, it is foundational.  If one of our shared ancestor species had in some way acted to disrupt the reproductive process, we would not be here at all to pretend there is such a thing as women with penises. 

This is strange because this is the point I'm making.  I even called it necessary.  You called it foundational.  We agree.
And you understand how a species can continue on as long as there is reproduction.  Not every individual has to reproduce for the species to survive.  You understand there are traits that are beneficial to a species that may not be beneficial to an individual.  Until such time as the trans movement ex's out all reproduction, then there is a compatibility. 

You seem to be taking my words as saying "if some men date some 'women with penises' instead of marrying biological women and having babies, no evolution can take place."  That is clearly not what I am saying.  What I am saying is when transgender zealots attempt to erase the biological distinctions between men and women, they act inconsistently with what evolution actually does.

No, I'm saying they don't act inconsistently with what evolution actually does.  You need to demonstrate that evolution is entirely within the individual.

You nit picked the word "goals" even though I gave a caveat to that in my first post, so I'm struggling to word it in a way that won't cause you to do the same here.  So call it what you will -- goals, aims, telos, unguided process with absolutely nothing that might suggest any such a thing as God exists -- whatever.  Evolution works through the reproductive process.  That is how alleles shift.  It is why genetic mutations matter.  If my genes mutate and I pass them on to no one, there is no evolution.  So if you deny that biological male-ness and female-ness are things, which many, many transgender ideologues do, then you deny the very means by which evolution works.  That is, your ideology is inconsistent with evolution.

https://www.britannica.com/science/gene-flow   This is part of that allele thing.  And you'll notice it deals with populations.  I said this upstream. 

  The discussion about female sports, deconstruction of family units, etc., all centers around the truth that transgender ideologues in fact deny what I suggest they deny.  Which is why your dismissal of them is frustrating.

I'm not dismissing them at all.  I said they were side topics and I still believe that they are.  I'm talking about transgender ideology and evolution.  I'm probably more on your side than you think about the other areas. 

Finally, I apologize if my words came across as insulting.  I will say that is a high level of sensitivity from someone who accused me of not recognizing things and therefore speaking inaccurately, posing side discussions and tangents, and arguing against straw men.  I'll work on my own presentation and frustration with you.  I would suggest you attempt to diagnose the height of your horse and descend somewhat.

I apologize if my tone is offputting and/or comes across condescending.


I would think if you are in error, I'm allowed to say that. 
I would think if your error is a strawman, I'm allowed to say that
I would think if you don't appear to recognize something, I'm allowed to say that. 

Now, if I said "you want to appear as the smart guy in the room" - now It looks like I'm speaking at your motives and personality. 

I would like to point out that you don't appear to recognize that's what you're doing when you say things like that.  I do not think my responses are an equivalent in that regard. 

All the same, I'll re-examine my tone and try harder.  I apologize in advance if I've already blown it in this exchange.

3

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 31, 2020, 08:51:50 AM »

There is no ad-hominem. 

The crux has been about the connection between trans-gender ideologies and the theory of evolution.  They remain perfectly compatible.  No trans-gender ideology suggests and end to reproduction.  Evolution describes the diversity of life and the mechanics which contribute that.  It's that simple.

HOW does evolution "describe the diversity of life and the mechanics which contribute (to) that?"

You are trying to gloss past what I've said by pretending 1) there must be an "end to reproduction" suggested in order to undermine reproductive capacity, and 2) in any event, reproduction has nothing to do with evolution because it is all about diversity of life.

Of course, both of those statements are simple.  That's in large part because they ignore literally everything I've said so you can present yourself as being the smart guy in the room, an illness that has infected internet atheists since the internet was popularized, but which you've managed to avoid until this pandemic apparently weakened everyone's immunity.  Your statements are simple.  And they are wrong as a result.

You have presented assertions without argument, much less evidence.  Well and good.  To quote one whose model of argumentation you are now deciding to follow:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
       -- Christopher Hitchens

I simply deny them.  Have a good day.

Since you've read up on evolution, then I know you understand how Natural Selection, mutation, gene flow work and the absolute necessity of reproduction is in the shifting of alleles. 
Now it is up to YOU to demonstrate that transgendered ideology is incompatible with this. 
As long as the transgendered movement recognizes reproduction as a viable part of life, then your position doesn't stand.  I can't prove what a position doesn't say. 

That being said. 

1) You imply I'm giving an ad hominem even I've only addressed your arguments.
- Then you insult me
2) You say I don't provide evidence, even though I've given simple and direct points.
- Then continue by not demonstrating yours.

Adding "have a good day" doesn't really help or make the exchange any better.  The juxtaposition kind of makes it sound worse.

4

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 31, 2020, 01:26:09 AM »

With respect to methodological naturalism, no method is assumed to be perfect.

I don't claim it to be error free.  I do personally think it's the best way understand the world.

So you can call it error if you like, but the teleology bleeds into their work anyway. Methodological naturalism, then, is a goal and a standard, but it is not perfectly achieved. (And some like it that way, even if it is not socially acceptable--and will socialize about it in an honest way if they feel safe enough.)

I think that you describe it as bleeding into their work is more to my point.  And to the original point, there is still no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and Trans-gendered ideologies. 

There isn't even a law of gravity itself. If you want to know why, read Kuhn. (The "thing-in-itself" is a Kantian concept. Something else you can thank your Missourian heritage for. Had you grown up Episcopalian that thought process may not have been part of your upbringing and, if so may have been harder to acquire later on in life.)

(I forgot to add in Jews to the list earlier.)

 

I appreciate this, and I've poked more into Kuhn since joining this forum. By the same token, I invite you to read about teleology in Biology. 

5

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 30, 2020, 10:55:41 PM »

There is no "Evolution itself" once you add observers, analysts, etc.

There is in the same sense of Tectonics itself. 

Also, it is not just my experience; you've probably come across comments circulated along the lines of "If you want to find godless academics, go look in the Anthropology department". This is because in comparison, biology departments can be expected to have more mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox in them. There is no conspiracy about it. (E.g. Francis Collins is public figure and his writings on religion are not a conspiracy.)

  In the sense that there's probably more Christians that accept evolution than don't, I'm with you there.  They have their own teleologies. 

"It's not a matter of socially acceptable, it's a matter of appropriate subject matter for the scientific method."

There is no single scientific method, rather, there are a variety of such methods. Most which can be traced back in their lineage to Kant's influence. (Being raised LCMS is likely to train you in Kantian thought patterns, and more so than for your typical US child.)

You're talking about what's going to show up in papers.  I'm saying that it's not a matter of socially acceptable when talking about God and plate tectonics.  It's methodological naturalism, in brief. 

Prior to about 1950ish you are more likely to encounter teleology in respected academic writings concerning evolution. There is nothing about the topic of evolution per se which makes it incompatible with teleology. The rules changed. They sometimes do. And if you don't believe me, read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Which by the way, was resisted due to its Hegelian character, which is contrary to most dominant scientific methods.)

I'm sure plenty of people applied a teleology in academic writings.  I know Newton did.  I'm saying star formation doesn't have a teleology in and of itself.  Neither does the water cycle.  Neither does Evolution.  Neither does plate tectonics.  One can apply their own and run from there. 

6

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 30, 2020, 09:57:55 PM »

It is not that simple:

I'm sorry, but it really is.

Ask around at any secular institution hosting professionals who teach and research evolution. They do believe in teleology.

In my experience and study, not in regards to Evolution, in and of itself. 

They just don't publish it in their academic research journals. This would not be socially acceptable.

It's not a matter of socially acceptable, it's a matter of appropriate subject matter for the scientific method. 

You have to get to know them to learn it, and how they relate it to their profession.

Because of this, evolution (& also, biology in general) has a crypto-teleology attached to it.

Sorry, this is too much hearsay/conspiracy for me to accept as evidence.  It's also in direct contradiction with my own experience and study.  People can apply their own teleology - Theistic Evolution and Eugenics - but these things are not prescribed by evolution. 

So you can't relieve yourself of the problem of teleology by endorsing evolution. The questions remain; there are a variety of answers.

This statement misrepresents my position.  Evolution itself doesn't have a teleology.  It does not prescribe things.  It does not present an "ought" so to speak.  It's a natural process like the water cycle or plate tectonics. 

7

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 30, 2020, 08:46:35 PM »

There is no ad-hominem. 

The crux has been about the connection between trans-gender ideologies and the theory of evolution.  They remain perfectly compatible.  No trans-gender ideology suggests and end to reproduction.  Evolution describes the diversity of life and the mechanics which contribute that.  It's that simple. 

8

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 30, 2020, 11:24:03 AM »

First, let's leave the Ls, Gs and Bs out of it.  We're talking specifically about the transgender movement, and they are not in lockstep with the rest of the gay rights movement.  Far from it, they are often in conflict with those other subgroups.

Not a problem. 

And as to the transgender movement specifically, Pastor Speckhard has already noted the flailing about men being bigots if they won't date "women with penises."  So we also ought not pretend a significant push in the transgender community is to normalize transgenderism, not only toward political aims, but in fact toward behavioral aims. 

  The photo specifically said hatred.  The articles talked about transphobia and bigotry.  All are worth discussing.  We also ought to look at more voices in the Trans community and see how they are approaching the dating topic.  And I read normalize transgenderism as more about accepting them as humans and productive members of society that we would welcome like any other.  I'm okay with that. 

That is, they wish for straight men to date and presumably marry transgender women, so that transgender women may be seen as equivalent to straight women.  No babies come from the former, but they do come from the latter.  Men dating and presumably marrying transgender women is not in keeping with an evolutionary understanding of biology.  It, in fact, undermines it.

It does not.  You said yourself it's at a species level.  The trans-movement would have to be against any sort of reproduction in order for what you say to be more accurate.  Until you recognize this, you will continue to be speaking inaccurately.

Further, all of this aims at deconstruction of the family.  Ultimately, a significant portion of the trans community is not interested in breaking down gender norms as an end in itself, but rather with the specific goal of deconstructing the family unit.  As noted elsewhere, I am reading Abigail Shrier's book right now.  The online trans community specifically wedges itself between children and their parents, tells children their parents are toxic to them, etc.  They encourage teens to cut off their parents and rally around their new "friends" in the online trans community. 

  This isn't on topic of the evolution thing.  It's a side discussion. 

We've also seen the dilemma in sports, where genetic males want to compete against genetic females, and (with all the testosterone driven forcefulness their biology would suggest) insist -- INSIST -- that they are no different than, for example, my 3 daughters.  As a father of 3 daughters, I don't wish to see their femininity erased.  But if I say that, the online trans community deems me a danger to my daughters, who I have cared for from birth and who they do not know or care for.  The family is the societal unit that fosters the next generation.  We continue the species.  Trying to disrupt that has consequences.

    Sports is a side tangent as well, and we could have a thread on it.  Probably not enough to to address that here.  Family units are open to broad interpretation.   

You say "evolution has no aim," but it clearly does.  Evolution aims to allow the fittest to survive.  You can call that an accident or not purposeful or characterize it however you wish, but it is clearly true, else evolution makes no sense at all.  Denying biological reality does not comport with survival of the fittest.  Mutilating one's body in an attempt to comport one's subjective belief with one's objective reality does not comport with survival of the fittest.  People who cannot bring forth the next generation will not survive in a cold, heartless, purposeless evolutionary world.  They are not "fit" in the sense evolution would suggest.  The particular feature of natural selection is not that the fittest survive in some esoteric sense, but rather that those who bring forth offspring survive, and those who do not die off.  Transgender ideology is an affront to this truth.

You've still go the strawman here, and for as long as you do it will continue to be a stumbling block.  Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life.  It's the shifting of frequency of alleles.  If there exists a group that argues that reproduction should cease as a whole, it is in conflict with the survival of said species.  That's all.  Transgender ideology does not suggest this.  Until such time you can demonstrate that it does, I would suggest the discussion be directed at things like sports and family units. 

9

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 30, 2020, 10:05:55 AM »

The first rumblings of Neuhaus's Law at work.

https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Trans-Hate.jpeg

It is bigotry and hatred if straight men don't want to date other men who think they are women. The trans-rights groups have more than negligible influence on the cultural left in America.

A reverse image search links it to a post that sounds like it's coming from the right. 

https://tineye.com/search/3437912781c1f21ccd6499a1a04982fe32ce36aa?sort=score&order=desc&page=1

Looking at the posted dates it appears someone took a stock image and made a poster.   

If you can find the trans right's campaign that promotes this, then definitely let me know.

I clicked on your link and didn’t find anything that seemed like it came from the right.

It's the one connected with reddit and September 2019.  It's explicitly connected with attacking the credibility of the media, moving moderates further right, and messing with leftists.

It could be propaganda from the right. If so, it is well done, because nobody with any aspirations in the media, entertainment industry, or academia who wasn’t clearly a voice of the right would dare publicly dismiss it as ludicrous. The trans-rights movement does indeed overtly say everything the poster says.

What are your thoughts on the poster/picture in terms of content? True? Ludicrous? Makes a good point, but perhaps a bit too unnuanced? Comedy?

It definitely looks like propaganda from the right.  So to answer your question is that I think it amps up the positions of those on the other side.  The articles were talking about transphobia and the image talked about hatred.  The propaganda looks like it WANTS a fight.  The content would align itself with the most extreme version which risks becoming a straw man. 
I do think we should examine the positions of the arguments, and I'm happy to disagree with some.  I think it would be helpful to look at how strong those voices/movements are.  Kind of like posters for Westboro Baptist Church don't represent all Christians.  (Though the posters aren't made from others trying to instigate in that case.)

To the extent evolution requires sexual reproduction in humans and their predecessor species (and it manifestly does), and to the extent it is reaching the age of reproduction that is at issue in propagating the species (and it manifestly is), I think a movement centered around denying biological sex and pretending that men are "really" women and women are "really" men is incompatible with the "goals" as it were of evolution.

Granting "goals" is a poor word choice, but really, so is "selection," and for the same reason.  The point is, evolution has an aim -- propagation of species.  That aim is undermined where sexual distinctions are undermined.  So it may not be completely incompatible, but neither is it "perfectly compatible."  I suppose if we wanted to dive neck deep into metaphysics we could talk about evolution into a sexless species that does not rely on biological realities, but one, that is a ton of hubris (who is to say humans don't simply become extinct due to such nonsense?) and two, it is also completely speculative and an exercise in wish casting.

I am concerned that your wording choices throughout this aren't helpful or accurate. 
Again, Evolution has no goals or aim.  Furthermore, and where your wording is more accurate, evolution is about speciation/species.  Even assuming you're correct, there is no evidence that any LGBT movement denies how babies are made.  Consequently, it appears less about denying sexual distinctions and biological realities, and more about how the biological realities are bigger/more nuanced.

At worst, if within the trans-movement, some denied how babies are made, and pushed society to stop bearing children, that doesn't necessarily make the rest of the movement bunk.  Think about how you left the Lutheran Confessions.  You recognize that some of it isn't true.  You don't argue those things here, but you still recognize that. 

10

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 30, 2020, 12:06:44 AM »

The first rumblings of Neuhaus's Law at work.

https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Trans-Hate.jpeg

It is bigotry and hatred if straight men don't want to date other men who think they are women. The trans-rights groups have more than negligible influence on the cultural left in America.

A reverse image search links it to a post that sounds like it's coming from the right. 

https://tineye.com/search/3437912781c1f21ccd6499a1a04982fe32ce36aa?sort=score&order=desc&page=1

Looking at the posted dates it appears someone took a stock image and made a poster.   

If you can find the trans right's campaign that promotes this, then definitely let me know.

I clicked on your link and didn’t find anything that seemed like it came from the right.

It's the one connected with reddit and September 2019.  It's explicitly connected with attacking the credibility of the media, moving moderates further right, and messing with leftists.   

11

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 29, 2020, 11:18:28 PM »

While these don't directly deal with the picture you mentioned, they do show that the concept of straight men not wanting to date trans women is not a straw man created by "the right".

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/transgender-dating_ca_5de12effe4b0d50f32a106a4

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating/amp

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42652947

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.advocate.com/commentary/2019/12/14/refusing-date-trans-people-transphobic%3famp

It took me all of 2 minutes to locate these articles, which leads me to believe that this issue is not a fabrication of "the right".

You are correct that not wanting to date transwomen is not a fabrication of the right.  I do not dispute that statement at all. 

12

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 29, 2020, 10:55:53 PM »

The first rumblings of Neuhaus's Law at work.

https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Trans-Hate.jpeg

It is bigotry and hatred if straight men don't want to date other men who think they are women. The trans-rights groups have more than negligible influence on the cultural left in America.

A reverse image search links it to a post that sounds like it's coming from the right. 

https://tineye.com/search/3437912781c1f21ccd6499a1a04982fe32ce36aa?sort=score&order=desc&page=1

Looking at the posted dates it appears someone took a stock image and made a poster.   

If you can find the trans right's campaign that promotes this, then definitely let me know. 

13

Your Turn / Re: The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books

« on: December 26, 2020, 11:17:35 AM »

I've been meaning to post in this thread, and time is short so -

I remember a friend of mine purchasing a house and I was there for the walkthrough and there was a RC Bible sitting there and while I waited I picked up and started reading through through Tobit and what struck me was that I had it in my head that it sounded like a legend.  That is to say, it felt just as comfy in a book like the Quran.

The mini-chapel in the dorm "isolation" had the other books in the Bible on the podium there.  And I would go in there fairly frequently to pray and occasionally read something out of there.  And reading, I think it was Sirach, there's a whole section about walking the path that just read so synergistic it wasn't even funny. 

These two experiences were prompts for prayers for wisdom/guidance/discernment.  I have not been able to identify a response to those prayers.



Those three things have helped me reach the conclusion that those books were not very helpful for my faith.   

14

Your Turn / Re: Basic idolatry

« on: December 26, 2020, 11:08:04 AM »

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/no-families-no-children-no-future-lgbt-30-percent-carle-c-zimmerman/

More basic idolatry.

We are creatures. We have a design. But even if you accept evolution, your theory of an organism doesn't account very well for the widespread rejection of the obvious male/female dichotomy.

Awwww...

You can't hit me with this five days before my uninvite.   

Evolution is perfectly compatible with transgender issues.  Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life.  It is the changes of allele frequencies via natural selection, mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift. 
There's no teleology attached to Evolution either - it has no goal. 
I contend it doesn't conflict with Christianity either, per se.  I do see a conflict between that and the confessions.  Some in the ELCA have disagreed with that, but I still can't wrap my head around the reasoning.  We probably shouldn't get into that here and now.

Hope your Christmas was merry and safe. 

15

Your Turn / Re: Important announcement

« on: December 23, 2020, 08:09:39 PM »

I hope the changes are successful.  Thank you to the people who took time to discuss things with me.  I wish you all well.

SW