Religion: Evolution Of The Perfect Lie

[Valjean]

My clarification was more a pedantic objection than a criticism of your argument, Critic. After a couple months of reading posts on evolution, intelligent design, &c. I've become rather touchy about the abysmal ignorance some posters show of Biology and evolution theories.

While most adaptations that aid individual survival also promote reproductive success, sexual signaling devices like Moose antlers or peacock's tails clearly do not.

Selfish genes "care" about DNA, not individuals.

 

[CJW]

Amphibians developed air-breathing lungs to adapt to an environment out of the water. For those of you who are skeptical of evolution, the peppered moth is a great example of natural selection that has been observed, but that is not sufficient evidence for evolution

The peppered moths photos and the like were staged, peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks, so there are gaping holes in the explanation that predation by birds caused moths to change in color through natural selection.

Amphibians developed air-breathing lungs....that's really quite a statement, given the changes in soft anatomy that must take place between fish and amphibia. Generally, evolutionists can only find typology in Nature, again and again, this is what the evidence shows down into the biochemical level and on up through the different animal Kingdoms, avian, reptilian, amphibian, etc.

There is no pattern of sequence. It's not there in the fossil record. It's not there in the soft anatomy. Etc. So, what is to be done?

Here is one thing you can do to make it "look" a little better. Just arrange the environment and argue, "This came from that!" So you have aquatic, semi-aquatic and land environments. Put the organisms from that sequence into some form of sequence and then, presto, you have some sort of sequence.

If you look into the evidence on these issues, it is for typology. This is key, because all of your claims are based on philosophic naturalism, Darwinism and the like.

One example of typology, from the biochemical level:
"Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence. Anyone who doubts this need only consult the sequence difference matrices given in Dayhoff’s standard reference book Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, available in any major library.

It is now well established that the pattern of diversity at a molecular level conforms to a highly ordered hierarchic system. Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils have failed to provide the elusive inter mediates so long sought by evolutionary biology. Again, the only relationships identified by this new technique are sisterly. At a molecular level, no organism is “ancestral” or “primitive” or “advanced” compared with its relatives. Nature seems to conform to the same non-evolutionary and intensely circumferential pattern that was long ago perceived by the great comparative anatomists of the nineteenth century. [I.e., natural theology is validated by scientific observation.]

One of the most remarkable features of these new biochemical discoveries is undoubtedly the way in which the pattern of molecular diversity seems to correspond to the predictions of typology. With very few exceptions the members of each defined taxa are always equally divergent whenever an outgroup comparison is made. Perhaps the only finding which does not seem to flow naturally from the typological model is that the degree of morphological divergence often does not seem to agree with the degree of molecular divergence. For example, the degree of molecular divergence among frogs, which are all morphologically very similar, is as great as that between mammals, which are morphologically very diverse. Similarly, the proteins of conifers are as equally divergent as those of the flowering plants, a group which appears to be far more divergent than the conifers at a morphological level. But despite those anomalies, all in all, the basic axioms of typology, that all the members of each type conform to type, that intratype variation is limited and type specific, so that when outgroup comparisons are made the subgroups of the type stand equidistant from more distantly related groups, hold universally throughout the entire realm of nature."
(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
By Michael Denton :290)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/delawarean-on-creationism.html#comments

 

[CJW]

Look at what religion is. Look at its history. See how it flows like water to suit the needs of a changing society....

That's just wrong. If the religion is not Nature based then often, it changes culture to conform to it. The religions that flow like water are Nature based, Darwinism flows like water as its mythological narratives are incessantly revised in light of recalcitrant evidence.

 

[CJW]

….another 'reimagining' such as the one caused by Galileo's findings (perhaps, this time, it'll be a better understanding of death, or a breakthrough relating to the creation of life on Earth).

"[T]he laws of nature are written by the hand of
God in the language of mathematics." --Galileo
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/cut-and-paste.html

Science emerged out of monotheistic culture, mainly the Christian culture of the West.
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/12/cracking-cosmic-code.html

An attempt at some correction of the mythological narratives of naturalism that you base many of your claims on. (I.e., ancients were stupid. We smart now. Me evolved, you not. Etc.)
http://right2leftists.blogspot.com/2005/01/flat-earth-myth-mythology-and-more.html

Many of your assumptions are plainly false. And there is the little matter of self-refutation, unless you are arguing that you lack intelligent design and Nature "selects" your ideas for you. You can't make a sign, sans design.

 

[CJW]

Selfish genes "care" about DNA, not individuals.

Genes are not Self. They cannot be selfish or care.

The genetic code and the evidence of typology refute the very notions that the Darwinistic memes at issue in the original lengthy piece are based on. If you do not have faith in the mythological narratives of Darwinism, then the piece loses its foundation.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

After a couple months of reading posts on evolution, intelligent design, &c. I've become rather touchy about the abysmal ignorance some posters show of Biology and evolution theories.

I've been debating evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design for years. I feel your pain.

I see evolution as sieve, not ladder - as consequence, not compulsion.

As I have explained, my only intention in using the word 'compel' was to express that natural selection is not voluntary. You see evolution as a sieve. When you're sifting flour, do the small grains get to choose if they want to stay in the sieve or be separated from the lumps, or is it not voluntary? Clearly, the way I intended 'compel' to be used applies regardless of whether you consider evolution to be a ladder or a sieve. Given that I didn't use compel in any other way in my ten line argument, and given that there aren't any equivocation fallacies to complain about, and given that I didn't misuse compel to make a fallacious conclusion in any way, I am at a complete loss as to why it's an issue. Regardless, if you can come up with a better word, I'll make the switch

Maybe it would help if you showed me how this might be applied to (a) atomism, (b) Orthodox Judaism, and (c) evolution.

Firstly, this description of Judaism is being made by someone who knows very little about it; pretty much everything you're about to read was found on Google. If I'm factually wrong anywhere, I apologize in advance ... and please be gentle.

(b) Orthodox Judaism

If we're going to discuss the evolution of an idea, we must discuss the idea as a whole, as it has survived for the thousands of years over which we intend to study it.

Judaism is one of the oldest religions. In evolution, ancient species show much less evidence of change over time than newer species -- compare the evolution of sharks or alligators to that of humans. To see evidence of social change, we must look back as far as we can in history. Studying the past five hundred years of an ancient idea is not sufficient when the age of that concept is measured in millenia. A thousand years ago, there was no such thing as Orthodox Judaism -- there was only Judaism, and so that is what we must look at to understand the evolution of that idea. The evolution of Orthodox Judaism, specifically, is impossible to see because "Orthodox Judaism" has only existed as an idea for a brief period of time.

The first evidence of natural selection is the emergence of successfully competing ideas -- the other movements of Judaism, including Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist. They've gained a foothold in recent centuries as changing societal pressures drive natural selection to support them in the face of Orthodox Judaism, as they have better adaptive traits to society. Were Judaism based on objective facts, it would be anchored by those facts, and would resist such social change. We do not see Judaism changing based on objective facts; we see Judaism changing based on social influence. That's the statement that differentiates the concept of 'Judaism' from the concept of 'gravity.'

I do agree that one must look at Orthodox Judaism specifically; the argument can be made that its survival, if unchanged, satisfies the requirements of an objectively true idea, despite the flawed movements that broke away from it under the influence of social pressures. Has Orthodox Judaism remained unchanged?

To study the influence society has had on Orthodox Judaism, a faith that claims to hold to the oldest form of Judaism, we can look to the Torah -- the only surviving records of how that religion existed in its infancy. The following are some tenets of Judaism that I was able to turn up in the Torah:

• Make animal sacrifices to please the Lord
• Put to death all manner of sexual offenders, including adulterers and homosexuals.
• Punish theft by selling the thief into slavery
• ... and so on. I'm sure you're familiar with some of the more ridiculous decrees in the Old Testament.

There are many tenets of Judaism -- tenets written explicitly in the divinely true Torah -- that Orthodox Jews do not hold to today. They did not do this out of dependence on objective fact; God did not inform them to call off the stoning of adulterers. What else caused them to reject these ideals other than pressures exerted by society? Once again, we see evidence of an idea changing not because of objective fact, as one would expect of an objectively true idea, but as a result of societal influence enacting through natural selection.

(a) Atomism & (c) Evolution

These are scientific claims based on objective fact. Studying their histories, you can clearly see that their progression has not been the result of societal influence or natural selection. Obviously, my claim that atomic theory and evolution do not show evidence of natural selection is a negative claim -- if you disagree with it, please present an example or two that I can discuss.

(d) The Heliocentric Solar System

I've shown an example of an objectively untrue idea swaying under the influence of social pressure. Now, compare that to the history of an objectively true idea: Our understanding of the solar system. This is an excellent example of an objectively true idea that resisted social pressure, and an example of the predictive ability of this theory. Were our understanding of the solar system not based on objective fact, it would have shifted to conform to the religious beliefs of Galileo's time.

Let's pretend we don't know that our understanding of the solar system is true; let's say we don't have access to the objective facts on which it is based. Looking back on the history of the idea, we can clearly see that it has been resistant to the sway of social influence. This theory would naturally conclude that the idea was based on objective fact; a conclusion that would be true. Note that the theory doesn't say that the idea is correctly based on objective fact, only that the motive behind its existence is a reliance on objective fact as opposed to social influence.

The above ideas do support my thesis. The religious idea shows clear evidence of change based on the modification of natural selection I presented (though, admittedly, I didn't study Orthodox Judaism in enough detail to compile a list of specific adaptive traits -- flexibility is there, unquestionability is there, I'm sure a threat of danger in there somewhere, faith is definitely there...). The objectively true ideas clearly illustrate the opposite. It follows, equally clearly, that changes based on social pressures serve as a very good indicator of the degree to which an idea is based on objective fact.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

If one honestly believes in science then the most scientific answer is that science does not have all the answers.

I completely agree with you that science doesn't have all the answers. My point is that religion, over the centuries, has found itself left with fewer and fewer questions to answer. It once existed to explain everything from fire to the wind to thunderstorms to volcanoes. As science discovered the answers to those questions, religion was left with less and less to explain, "backing itself into a corner framed by those few questions" science hasn't figured out.

By the way, I don'T think thE comMent about a lack of intElligent design was entirely necessary. I'm unfailingly polite; I never say anything bad about anyone!

Traditional religions that limit men's promiscuity by their sexual ethic, what is the explanation?

The spread of genes is irrelevant to the spread of ideas; this is not a biological or a genetic concept, but an entirely sociological issue. The fact that religion limits man's promiscuity has no effect on the ability of that man to spread the idea.

You assume that everyone else's ideas are natural, being of Nature.

I don't assume anything about ideas, except that natural selection applies to them. Your quibbling about metaphysical vs. transphysical is hopelessly irrelevant; an abstract concept can have characteristics, and I've argued that the characteristics of an idea make natural selection a necessary consequence, regardless of the philosophical category they fit into.

Why did you spend such a lengthy time arguing against evolution? I spent quite a lot of effort in my initial posts to explain how I was not supporting evolution, only the mechanic of natural selection. I have looked into the peppered moth at length, and your assertion that it is a staged phenomenon is incorrect.

If the religion is not Nature based then often, it changes culture to conform to it.

A very good point, and something that should be taken into consideration. When studying a religion changing with society, it is necessary to first support the idea that the society is changing the religion and not the other way around. I'll incorporate that into my thesis. Thank you.

The fact that Galileo was not an atheist is irrelevant to my thesis.

The fact that science emerged out of monotheistic culture is also irrelevant.

The intelligence or lack thereof of ancients is irrelevant; the principles of this thesis will apply equally to ideas conceived today as they do to ideas conceived thousands of years ago. If we could somehow reverse time and run everything backwards, the thesis would also necessarily support the changing of ideas in response to societal pressures as we regressed from the humans of today to the humans of yesterday.

Given that the three things you prefaced your links with were irrelevant, you'll understand why I don't leap to read the contents of those links. If there is something there you feel relevant, please post it.

Okay, CJW, that was me being uncharacteristically nice in response to a series of condescending, ascerbic posts. If you want to continue this discussion, then please continue it with respect, regardless of how deluded, unworthy and willfully ignorant you think I am.

 

[CJW]

My point is that religion, over the centuries, has found itself left with fewer and fewer questions to answer. It once existed to explain everything from fire to the wind to thunderstorms to volcanoes.

My point is that science is creating more questions than answers. Also, monotheism essentially comes from the God of the Jews and your argument there does not apply.

Also, part of an answer to sciencing filling the gaps and religion hiding in them.
http://right2leftists.blogspot.com/2005/01/supposed-argument-from-ignorance.html

By the way, I don'T think thE comMent about a lack of intElligent design was entirely necessary.

It is entirely necessary to undermine the philosophy that your entire piece takes for granted. Of course it is. That's why I will continue to bring all such things up and link in to more. You cite an example of moth's wings changing color and make faith based assumptions about much, which is in turn, the foundation of your whole theory. If the foundation is undermined, the theory crumbles. I think you've already undermined your Self and your own memes. As you revise your theory, perhaps by natural selection, making it mutable, does that mean it is less and less true? According to the theory itself, it does.

I'm unfailingly polite; I never say anything bad about anyone!

That has nothing to do with intelligence.

The spread of genes is irrelevant to the spread of ideas; this is not a biological or a genetic concept, but an entirely sociological issue. The fact that religion limits man's promiscuity has no effect on the ability of that man to spread the idea.

What is an idea? What is its substance?

I may answer more. But I will see what you have to say about this first.

 

[CJW]

Okay, CJW, that was me being uncharacteristically nice in response to a series of condescending, ascerbic posts.

Do not begin to hide in claims about nicety, even if it were so that has nothing to do with intelligence and the truth.

But since you made a claim like that, what is so ascerbic? A quote will do...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As I have explained, my only intention in using the word 'compel' was to express that natural selection is not voluntary.

I don't know where you think you explained it, but I'm more han satisfied with your current explanation - 'involuntary' is a fine word.

Firstly, this description of Judaism is being made by someone who knows very little about it; ... If I'm factually wrong anywhere, I apologize in advance ... and please be gentle.

No problem.

The evolution of Orthodox Judaism, specifically, is impossible to see because "Orthodox Judaism" has only existed as an idea for a brief period of time.

No true Scottsman, hey? It has existed significantly longer that Protestantism. You need to do better than this.

There are many tenets of Judaism -- tenets written explicitly in the divinely true Torah -- that Orthodox Jews do not hold to today. They did not do this out of dependence on objective fact; God did not inform them to call off the stoning of adulterers.

The tenets about ritual and punishment presume the Temple and the authority of the Sanhedrin. For the Orthodox, the tenets have not changed but, rather, the means and authority to enact them in the manner proscribed.

Meanwhile, but over a qualitatively shorter period of time, evolutionary theory has passed from Lamarkism to Darwinism to Social Darwinism to Neo-Darwinism to Punctuates Equilibriumism, etc. It is impossible to use your heuristic (it's far too crude to be a metric) without conceding that, in comparison to Jewish Orthodoxy, evolution is a lie. Either your methods are flawed or we're both on the wrong side of a larger debate.

Look, TheTrendyCynic, I'm glad you're impressed by the explanatory power of evolution, but attempts to rehabilitate the genetic fallacy by circular arguments and converting the conditional are simply unimpressive. Say what you will, the fact remains that ...

{A} implies {B} does not guarantee that {B} confirms {A}​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Traditional religions that limit men's promiscuity by their sexual ethic, what is the explanation? According to philosophic naturalism the idea ought to have evolved for the best genetic effect in the spreading of one's own genes.

That was very, very dumb. Evolution is not teleological.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

My point is that science is creating more questions than answers.

That's irrelevant to what I'm claiming. I'm not talking about science. Did I mention science once in my entire argument? Not at all. My only point with regard to the comment about religion backing itself into a corner is that religion has fewer questions to answer today than it did a thousand years ago. This is a statement free of value judgment; it is a fact.

As you revise your theory, perhaps by natural selection, making it mutable, does that mean it is less and less true? According to the theory itself, it does.

No it doesn't. That an idea changes does not in itself imply that it is not based on objective fact. I've said (explicitly and formally, in fact, in that 10-line bolded argument summary you might remember reading somewhere) that the changes must be the result of social influences. The logical revision of a theory as it is better understood is certainly not the same thing.

[Politeness] has nothing to do with intelligence.

In my experience I have found that to be untrue, but I'll leave this as having no relevance to the discussion at hand.

What is an idea? What is its substance?

An idea is an abstract concept with no material substance.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I don't know where you think you explained it, but I'm more han satisfied with your current explanation - 'involuntary' is a fine word.

Very well:

1. Darwinian natural selection applies to the abstract concept of ideas.
2. (1) Ideas will change involuntarily, unless resisted, in response to environmental stimuli as Darwinian natural selection describes.
3. The environment in which ideas exist is society.
4. (2, 3) Ideas will change involuntarily, unless resisted, in response to societal stimuli as Darwinian natural selection describes.
5. Objectively true ideas are exclusively dependent on objective facts.
6. Objective facts do not change over time as a result of societal stimuli.
7. (5, 6) Objectively true ideas do not change over time as a result of societal stimuli.
8. (4, 7) Objectively true ideas will not change over time as Darwinian natural selection describes.
9. Religious ideas change over time as Darwinian natural selection describes.
10. (8, 9) Religious ideas are not objectively true ideas.

I think it's clunky this way, and the problem is not only finding a word that means 'involuntary,' but also allowing room for resistance to this sifting mechanism. An involuntary, passive effect that can be resisted by some characteristic...? I need a word for that.

No true Scottsman, hey? It has existed significantly longer that Protestantism. You need to do better than this.

Whoa, where did Protestantism come from? We're talking about Judaism; we're studying the evolution of a concept that began with Judaism thousands of years ago. That is our 'idea.' Orthodox Judaism, relative to the idea of Judaism, has not been around for a significant period of time.

What you're doing is like taking a single species of monkey and saying 'Okay, take this species and show me evidence of its evolution' instead of letting me refer to the evolutionary tree from which it evolved.

Now, with what you write next, you've convinced me that you haven't read my arguments at all. That's disappointing, as I genuinely thought we might make more progress here.

Meanwhile, but over a qualitatively shorter period of time, evolutionary theory has passed from Lamarkism to Darwinism to Social Darwinism to Neo-Darwinism to Punctuates Equilibriumism, etc. It is impossible to use your heuristic (it's far too crude to be a metric) without conceding that, in comparison to Jewish Orthodoxy, evolution is a lie. Either your methods are flawed or we're both on the wrong side of a larger debate.

That only makes sense if you think I'm saying that any ideological change is evidence of this process of natural selection. Tell me you don't think I'm saying that, what with me repeating the very opposite a dozen times throughout our discussion.

Look, TheTrendyCynic, I'm glad you're impressed by the explanatory power of evolution,

Yes. It's very pretty.

but attempts to rehabilitate the genetic fallacy by circular arguments

Where? Have you pointed one out yet? Or are these circular arguments so serious you're saving them till later?

and converting the conditional are simply unimpressive. Say what you will, the fact remains that ...

{A} implies {B} does not guarantee that {B} confirms {A}

​

Hey, remember when you accused me of converting the conditional way back when? Remember how I responded to your objection and you... said... nothing? Yeah. So do I -- it's on page three, just over halfway down. How about you offer a counter-rebuttal instead of merely repeating yourself?

I don't get you, Deut. 32.8. My intention here is to see if this argument is tenable and, if so, to improve it. I have presented means to falsify the argument and demonstrated how it is predictive, and I've done so in the best logical fashion I know how. You paint logical fallacies around it that I claim don't apply, then you ignore me when I explain why, only to bring them up later on in the hopes that... what... I'll forget?

I sense a personal aversion to my points on your part, a bias to shoot them down using any means necessary, and I can't figure out why. Perhaps you are a fanatic, clinging doggedly to an inviolate belief that evolution cannot possibly apply to the abstract. Perhaps you admire evolution so zealously that you find any attempt to reimagine it anathema. You won't give any quarter when I explain something well; you'll just ignore it and move onto your next avenue of attack. I spend almost a half hour condensing my argument into a ten line formal form to help you better understand it, with the genuine intention of learning from what you say, and you ignore everything I've written to pounce on a semantic triviality (and, incidentally, when I explained why it was trivial, you ignored that, too).

Why?
​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hey, remember when you accused me of converting the conditional way back when? Remember how I responded to your objection and you... said... nothing? Yeah. So do I -- it's on page three, just over halfway down. How about you offer a counter-rebuttal instead of merely repeating yourself?

In fact, you wrore ...

You're right, which is why a necessary component to my argument is another statement: If an idea is based on objective fact, then it will not be able to evolve adaptable characteristics over time as well as an idea that is not based on objective fact. My conclusion is the logically sound contrapositive to that: If an idea has perfectly evolved adaptable characteristics over time, then it is likely not based on objective fact.​

Give me a protocol to distinguish that which is perfectly evolved from that which is not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think you've already undermined your Self and your own memes. As you revise your theory, perhaps by natural selection, making it mutable, does that mean it is less and less true? According to the theory itself, it does.

The man's got a point!

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

In fact, you wrore ...

You're right, which is why a necessary component to my argument is another statement: If an idea is based on objective fact, then it will not be able to evolve adaptable characteristics over time as well as an idea that is not based on objective fact. My conclusion is the logically sound contrapositive to that: If an idea has perfectly evolved adaptable characteristics over time, then it is likely not based on objective fact.​

Give me a protocol to distinguish that which is perfectly evolved from that which is not.

You're right; 'perfectly evolved' is an extreme ideal that is impossible to differentiate. Let me reword the above rebuttal:

You're right, which is why a necessary component to my argument is another statement: If an idea is based on objective fact, then it will not be able to evolve adaptable characteristics over time as well as an idea that is not based on objective fact. My conclusion is the logically sound contrapositive to that: If an idea shows evidence of social changes acting through natural selection, then it is likely not based on objective fact.

The man's got a point!

:banghead3

As you revise your theory, perhaps by natural selection, making it mutable, does that mean it is less and less true? According to the theory itself, it does.

No it doesn't. That an idea changes does not in itself imply that it is not based on objective fact. I've said (explicitly and formally, in fact, in that 10-line bolded argument summary you might remember reading somewhere) that the changes must be the result of social influences. The logical revision of a theory as it is better understood is certainly not the same thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry that you don't find me to be a social influence.

I decided to edit this to add a reference to an artical I find relevant. It notes, in part, ...

I have gone into a little detail (although not enough to resolve all the complications of this case) because I want to contrast two strategies for generating Darwinian insights in philosophy. One, that I commend, remains close to the core doctrines of Darwinism, the three claims with which I began. The other, which needs to be undertaken with caution by enthusiasts and scrutinized closely by those to whom they announce their findings, attempts to advance specific claims about the ways in which natural selection has molded human propensities, and, on this basis, to resolve traditional philosophical problems. In principle, there is no bar to illuminating human behavior and psychological propensities by employing the perspective of natural selection, but it’s important to recognize just how onerous are the demands of doing this in a responsible fashion. The temptations to rush down a Darwinian path to exciting conclusions about human nature that can revolutionize the social sciences and the humanities (including philosophy) are obvious: glitzy advertisements beckon the unwary. But those who want to tread this path should proceed more slowly. It already contains wreckage enough.

- see Giving Darwin His Due​

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I'm sorry that you don't find me to be a social influence.

I'm not sure if you mean this as a serious objection; do you believe I am making an equivocation fallacy by excluding you as a social influence of the type responsible for the natural selection of ideas? If so, please say so explicitly -- and explain why, or ask the explicit questions you need answered to better understand what I mean by social influence.

In principle, there is no bar to illuminating human behavior and psychological propensities by employing the perspective of natural selection, but it’s important to recognize just how onerous are the demands of doing this in a responsible fashion.

I fully accept this; it seems to be saying that the application of Darwinian theory to abstract philosophical concerns is possible, but must be done carefully. I believe that I have done so carefully, in that I spent almost 5000 words describing in painstaking, 'remarkably long' detail the logic I followed to arrive at my conclusion. If I have erred in any way, hopefully you can point that out to me. Thus far, I feel I have answered every one of your complaints satisfactorily -- you do not seem to disagree, as you have yet to specifically object to any of my counter-rebuttals.

Am I right in thinking we're moving forward?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Once again, please talk to me about Orthodox Judaism and evolution and explain why I should not label the former as "true" and the latter as "lies". Afterward, we can talk about Taoism and empiricism.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Deat. 32.8, you already asked me to do that. I already did do that. Please return to that post and the ones that followed for my take on Orthodox Judaism and evolution. If there's something you'd like expanded, or an issue you wish to refute, go right ahead and ask -- I'll answer every single one of your questions, just as I've been doing from the beginning of this discussion.

Alternatively, you can start the discussion of Taosim and empiricism on your own, and perhaps explain where it is you think these issues do not fit with my theory. I still have no idea where your objections to this theory lie; if you expanded on them, then I'd be better equipped to answer your questions in the way you want.