mark gamache

@padrescertnerd @JimDMiller @MatthewParrott Yes and no. In times when food is scarce being fat is a sign of adaptive success. For example, around the Great Depression you saw beauty norms shift to heavier women (vs 1920’s thin standards).

@markgamache @JimDMiller @MatthewParrott You can control weight…

Given that women have a strong preference for tall men, and given that height is highly heritable, why hasn't evolution given men a stronger preference for tall women?

@jimmypalmer1526 @Abdulla11987894 @Otakundead @MatthewParrott @JimDMiller For most of human history polygyny was not the primary mode of reproduction (it was at ‘low levels’ and marriage was regulated. This paper also highlights the disagreements about how much influence women had in the process (seems it was cultural). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC30…

@Abdulla11987894 @Otakundead @MatthewParrott @markgamache @JimDMiller This was true of warlord cultures and much of prehistoric civilizations. Once sophisticated societies started to form, mating became more of a socioeconomic contract, as it is still practiced in much of the third world today.

@Abdulla11987894 @Otakundead @MatthewParrott @JimDMiller That didn’t happen in stable groups and societies. Maybe in war, but that was not the norm. Who was providing resources to all these Women raped by men to raise their children? You have a warped view of history.

@Otakundead @MatthewParrott @markgamache @JimDMiller In basically all of human evolutionary history i.e. lawlessness, females have never chosen their mate. The stronger males just take, the females don’t have a choice. Even in skewed population sex ratios, a band of 10 men can easily overpower 50 women.

I love your certainty, but even in cultures with arranged marriages women frequently had escape or veto power if they didn’t like their husbands. I also, said it *may* be environmental. The modern version is probably just a social overlay on the established tendency for women to prefer men taller than them. If you look at the preferences that have been documented men do prefer less of a height difference than women which is a tallness skew.

@markgamache @JimDMiller No, Mark. You are incorrect, and your additional speculation is also incorrect. And we don't really need speculation given the wealth of neolithic contact and how mating was documented to work.

@JimDMiller @MatthewParrott Females in most if not all sexually reproducing species filter the mating. I think the preference for tall may be like the preference for body weight, it’s environmental. When food is scarce men prefer heavier women.

@MatthewParrott I think that would predict that current female mate selection is driven by culturally determined choices.

@eagle_greg @SpeedWatkins Adam didn’t make one choice, he did things before that. Also, humans can’t do absolutely anything, we can only do what God allows, right? God choose to allow the fall. Also is there free will in heaven? Is there sin in heaven?

Really? So you can still have feee will if you can make only one choice? You just said if God had not created the Tree then Adam would not have partaken to perpetuate the fall this would be true but if you remove the ability to make the wrong choice then have you been given free will to choose between them? I have another what if: Suppose God did not create the devil/serpent/angel that falls to become the devil then what would have happened? You see the presence of the tree of knowledge is not the problem for you it’s the ability for them to choose and the choice they made that is the real problem. For free will to truly exist then the choice has to exist to do either good or evil for if only one choice exists then it is an illusion of free will. So God created both the Angel with free will to choose and man with free will to choose and placed the paths before them and let them choose, they chose the incorrect paths just as God knew they would but the choice had to be given still for free will to exists. The list of what ifs could potentially go on and on. What if God had not created Eve would Adam have fallen? Why did you gravitate to the tree never giving thought to the beings themselves? Why place blame on the tree for existing as the problem when the tree is nothing but a choice to make or not to make it’s the beings that make the choice that are the real problem.

The more pressing issue for the design hypothesis is that it is empirically empty—our observations neither confirm nor disconfirm it. It’s not that “God as an explanation…loses ground over time;” rather, it never had any ground to begin with. It isn’t an explanation at all.

@ToKTeacher @martinmbauer Because the less certain we are of ‘knowledge’ the more attention and effort we will spend making sure it’s true. Being 100% certain is episematic closure.

@martinmbauer We simply *know* no information, matter, etc can exceed the speed of light. And that’s enough. Being sure or certain of it or 100% confident in it is all irrelevant. What more could we want than *knowing* it is the case?

We’re never 100% sure about anything, but there is nothing we're more sure about than that

@Alec_Zeck Koch postulates you grifting scumbag.

Viruses have never been demonstrated to exist. Bacteria and fungi are pleomorphic, meaning they cycle through various forms and shapes to adapt to their environmental roles. They proliferate specifically to bioremediate the conditions they encounter. While the phenomenon of two or more people getting sick in the same space is obviously real, there is no empirical evidence that healthy people become sick when exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids. Microbes heal. Fear of microbes causes illness.

@eagle_greg @SpeedWatkins Free will doesn’t require the capacity to do evil. Doesn’t Adam make choices before the fall? Could he have chosen not to eat? Could God have not created the Tree of Knowledge preventing the fall and allowing Adam to continue with free will in Eden?

@markgamache @SpeedWatkins God can but it would have been a limit on God giving free will to all His creations.

@kareem_carr You might want to decide what consciousness is before criticizing someone else’s judgement.

When people say AI is "conscious" what they seem to mean is it's a mathematical model that has within it a representation of the model itself. By this definition, a digital map that contains an active tracker of the map itself is also conscious, which is kind of silly.

@LarsTheBadMan @KatKanada_TM It’s possible a maximally great being doesn’t exist in one world. If he doesn’t exist in one world he doesn’t exist in any world. -just invert the argument

@KatKanada_TM One of the dumber "arguments for god". Possibly it's only the moral argument that is dumber.

The ontological argument for God's existence.

@ToKTeacher @bgreene @DavidDeutschOxf I don’t get free will from that, sorry.

And here @bgreene gets from @DavidDeutschOxf his latest view on free will. He says it exists - and is about knowledge creation. A thing wasn't there, then it was, and we can't explain that by "the Big Bang" or any other prior state of the universe. People create new choices:

@eagle_greg @SpeedWatkins That’s a long answer that fully misses the point. God created everything. If someone corrupted creation it was allowed by God. Was it beyond God’s power to prevent the corruption?

I already told you it was one of Gods other creations that initiated this corruption so why ask the question when the answer has already been provided. It was one of Gods creations that became full of himself much the same way as you are currently acting. I also told you His creations made a choice and this is the problem you have because the creation made the choice and not God forcing the choice down their throats as you are portraying as what happens. The creations of God brought the corruption on themselves through their own choices, not by force from God. 1. The choice of the deceiver. 2.The choice of the woman desiring power. 3. The choice of the man in allowing himself to be manipulated by the woman to follow her. A question to ponder: What would have happened to the Eve and the deceiver if Adam had not partaken? For ultimately the Bible places the blame upon Adam’s shoulders for the corruption of the creation and his choice to follow Eve and neither Eve nor the deceiver receive blame later in the Bible for the corruption but Adam alone bares this distinction. Here we see woman is blamed for being deceived. “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but [the] woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression. [Gen. 3:1-6.]” 1 Timothy 2:14 AMPC But again notice the blame for sin is not placed on her shoulders, but a violation of the rules. Here we see who is blamed: “Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.” Romans 5:12 AMPC “For if because of one man's trespass (lapse, offense) death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive [God's] overflowing grace (unmerited favor) and the free gift of righteousness [putting them into right standing with Himself] reign as kings in life through the one Man Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).” Romans 5:17 AMPC “Well then, as one man's trespass [one man's false step and falling away led] to condemnation for all men, so one Man's act of righteousness [leads] to acquittal and right standing with God and life for all men.” Romans 5:18 AMPC “For just as by one man's disobedience (failing to hear, heedlessness, and carelessness) the many were constituted sinners, so by one Man's obedience the many will be constituted righteous (made acceptable to God, brought into right standing with Him).” Romans 5:19 AMPC “For since [it was] through a man that death [came into the world, it is] also through a Man that the resurrection of the dead [has come]. For just as [because of their union of nature] in Adam all people die, so also [by virtue of their union of nature] shall all in Christ be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 AMPC So as you can see Adam is blamed not the deceiver or Eve because the final decision was his own that he made. Being prepared for a decision that one will make and forcing one to make a decision are two different things.

@ToKTeacher @GaryMarcus I don’t think those are analogous. Consciousness exists. God may not. But, consciousness is so ill defined we can’t really agree on what it is. Most AIs can pass a Touring Test, but we have no idea if anything besides ourselves is really conscious besides how they act.

@GaryMarcus Spending time chatting with Claude and concluding “it’s conscious!” reminds me of that other biologist Francis Collins who saw a waterfall frozen in 3 places, concluded “the Trinity!”, fell to his knees and converted to Christianity there on the spot. Personal incredulity!

If only Richard Dawkins had seen this.

@limitandmind Stories are not evidence. Not receiving things is counter evidence. This is in contrast to eyewitnesses you can question or the physical evidence from the examples given. This is why Hebrews exists, it addresses the lack of evidence (things not seen).

Incorrect. You're reading not having received things as promised as having no evidence, which the text contradicts. Faith is trust that God, who has always been faithful, will continue to be so. Not only that, the passage is meant as an encouragement to future people's faith, by giving them reasons. This is the obvious context of the passage and stands at odds with the interpretation you hold with no evidence.

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." - John 20:29 Dawkins read this as Jesus praising gullibility. The actual scene is Jesus offering Thomas the exact physical evidence he wanted, then commending people who'd later believe the eyewitnesses without needing their own resurrection appearance. Trusting credible testimony isn't the same as believing without reason. Elijah staged a public test against 450 prophets of Baal. Two altars with no fire. Whichever god ignites the sacrifice wins. He drenched his altar in water first, then fire fell from Heaven. (1 Kings 18) John the Baptist, sitting in prison, sent followers to ask Jesus if He was really the one. Jesus didn't rebuke John's doubt. He said go tell John what you see: the blind see, the lame walk, and the dead are raised. (Matthew 11 where Jesus quotes the book of Isaiah which John knew) Paul, writing about the resurrection, lists the witnesses by name and notes most are still alive. Go ask them. (1 Corinthians 15) Blind faith is not a biblical category. But the Lord's words still ring true today "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Who or what did the corrupting of the original? Nothing exists without God creating it, so God created the corruption. You'll want to blame some non-God thing, but everything was created by God knowing what would happen when it was created and having the power to 'corrupt'. So the corruption is God's plan.

Why couldn’t the original be corrupted? From another one of His creations that had grown overconfident in his own abilities. Not necessarily, do you desire things just to have them or because you need them? What propose does creation serve if you believe God lacks nothing? What would God need with mankind? Why create that which will only betray and hurt you? The corruption came and now the perfect has come and we must put on the incorruptible aka the perfect. We are not perfect in this form and were cursed to die when the corruption came into play by the deception of another of Gods creations that had grown overconfident in himself and jealous of mankind’s gift from God. Hence Gods creations were perfect in the beginning but jealousy reared its ugly head corrupting Gods perfect creations.

@limitandmind ahh the 'faith' in Hebrews 11 is *not* about evidence it's faith in the absence of evidence. also 'not having received the things promised'. This is in contrast to the claims made by the OP.

Nowhere does the verse say that. Hebrews 11's "confidence in what we hope for" is informed expectation built on prior evidence. The chapter's whole point is a hall of fame list of people whose hope was grounded in God's demonstrated track record, through creation, the flood, the exodus, and other fulfilled promises. Biblical faith is trust extended beyond what you can currently see, based on what you've already seen or reliably testified.

@limitandmind Not so much. Hope is not a reason or evidence to believe.

@markgamache Yes, that is complimentary to this post

@eagle_greg @SpeedWatkins if his original creation was perfect it could not be corrupted. Where did the corruption come from? Desire implies a lack of something. What did God lack? So is creation just a work of art with no purpose? Most Christians would disagree.

However God did not create something that was imperfect His original creation was perfect but was corrupted. God creates because He can and desires to do so. Why do artist create works of art they serve no purpose other than to be observed? Indeed yet purpose is inferred by the design as stated before a tool is created with a purpose and art is created to be observed by others as a means of expression of the artist for art serves no other purpose but a tool can be repurposed. So the better question is are we tools or are we art to be observed that God has created? There is little in the way of doubt as to the complexity of life itself which infers intelligence of the Designer.