Evolutional principles existed before life? [Archive]

Senor Herberto

12-04-2005, 06:51 PM

Dangerrmouse

12-04-2005, 07:16 PM

On the other hand, since life evolves to adapt to its environment, it would be a strange universe where it did not exist. Ignorance of the causation of something doesn't mean Goddidit.

mataj

12-05-2005, 04:45 AM

if it is true that the principles inherent to evolution are true [these are the interactions and actions of chemicals, itho evolutionists] Evolution is a very simple problem solving algorithm, which can be implemented in chemistry, as well as on computer, or emulated with our behaviour. It goes as follows:
Take(combine) known solution(s)
Tinker a little bit.
Test the new combination
Proceed with the new combination if it performs better, otherwise keep the old one.
Go to point 2
That's all.

sub_zer0

12-05-2005, 05:14 AM

On the other hand, since life evolves to adapt to its environment, it would be a strange universe where it did not exist. Ignorance of the causation of something doesn't mean Goddidit.

Nobody denies microevolution... i.e., small change or adaptation of its enviroment.

Dangerrmouse

12-05-2005, 04:57 PM

That "argument" has been comprehensively demolished across several other threads here.

Nuke the Oil

12-05-2005, 11:02 PM

life consciousness and reality are ridiculous without God. :angel:

I find them rather ridiculous with God as well! ;)

eugene40

12-05-2005, 11:31 PM

if it is true that the principles inherent to evolution are true [these are the interactions and actions of chemicals, itho evolutionists] then the universe was designed to support and promote life.

personally, i believe that God creates species and uses evolutionary principles of the universe [like how God planned and created gravity] to guide their microevolution. but i do not believe that non-divine will caused creation of new species.

if life, consciousness, and reality are so prevalent, why is it impossible or ridiculous for there to exist a LIVING OMNISCIENT and REAL God?

...

..

.

life consciousness and reality are ridiculous without God. :angel:

Doubtful... because then there would be an inherent flaw.

God creates everything to evolve (change) except his stupid laws and man written words in the bible.... Sorry your theory unfortunately doesn't hold up with the dogmatic ignorance of Christianity. As well as the possibility that god created humans to evolve and humans well some of them have evovled to be attracted to their same sex. But yet gay people are wrong and are an abomination of gods evolutional plan. So either he meant for it to happen and it is ok. Or he is stupid. Just an opinion though.

Nuke the Oil

12-05-2005, 11:44 PM

Doubtful... because then there would be an inherent flaw.

God creates everything to evolve (change) except his stupid laws and man written words in the bible.... Sorry your theory unfortunately doesn't hold up with the dogmatic ignorance of Christianity. As well as the possibility that god created humans to evolve and humans well some of them have evovled to be attracted to their same sex. But yet gay people are wrong and are an abomination of gods evolutional plan. So either he meant for it to happen and it is ok. Or he is stupid. Just an opinion though.

I have to play devil's... err, I mean God's advocate here, but isn't such a view incompatible with any morality? It is certainly possible to be a murderer or a rapist, but under such a view these actions are right because they are possible.

dittohead not!

12-05-2005, 11:58 PM

Evolution is a very simple problem solving algorithm, which can be implemented in chemistry, as well as on computer, or emulated with our behaviour. It goes as follows:
Take(combine) known solution(s)
Tinker a little bit.
Test the new combination
Proceed with the new combination if it performs better, otherwise keep the old one.
Go to point 2
That's all.

So, if God doesn't exist, just who is doing the tinkering and testing?

Void Image

12-06-2005, 01:30 AM

So, if God doesn't exist, just who is doing the tinkering and testing?

He is referring to an algorithm, a formula for which the end result (so far, on our planet) is intelligence. When two and two go together, who is making the answer four?

eugene40

12-06-2005, 01:47 AM

I have to play devil's... err, I mean God's advocate here, but isn't such a view incompatible with any morality? It is certainly possible to be a murderer or a rapist, but under such a view these actions are right because they are possible.

Sure why not... If "god" has a plan for everyone. Then he puts murderers and rapists out there. And remember,, if there is a god he would not be bound by any morals that we have.

And I didn't say they were right,,, I merely said they were possible.

Senor Herberto

12-06-2005, 04:19 AM

who caused reality to be so that you have 2?

hommosexuality is deviation caused by injury. a genetically and socially healthy individual is not homosexual. just like my kidneys function properly to expel waste from my body. some people have kidney disfigurements. sympathy. homosexuality is socio-mental scar tissue.

you who blame God for man's failures, do you recognize the freedom of will in your own mind?

do not associate me or any other piece of truth with your current misconceptions. you've got anti-christian prejudice so deep it seeps into your understanding of what christianity is, who Christ is, what He died for, and who God is.

you take the world for granted and think you live by right.

life is a gift. love is a gift.

mataj

12-06-2005, 05:10 AM

So, if God doesn't exist, just who is doing the tinkering and testing?Intelligent, intuitive tinkering speeds up the process, but intelligence is not necessary here. It can go spontaneously as well.

Your question is similar to: "OK, so the universe was created in Big Bang. But who set off the Big bang?" Again, no creative intelligence is necessary here. If Big Bang was a sort of explosion, the god involved might as well lost a couple of fingers in the process.

Nuke the Oil

12-06-2005, 08:51 AM

who caused reality to be so that you have 2?

Who caused God? This isn't a real argument because no matter what view of reality you have something has to be causeless, whether God or reality itself. I would argue that there is something else "out there" because I doubt we have enough knowledge to describe even a small portion of existance. Sort of Occam's razor in reverse.

hommosexuality is deviation caused by injury. a genetically and socially healthy individual is not homosexual. just like my kidneys function properly to expel waste from my body. some people have kidney disfigurements. sympathy. homosexuality is socio-mental scar tissue.

And what proof have you of this? I could say the following:

Religiosity is deviation caused by injury. a genetically and socially healthy individual is not religious. just like my kidneys function properly to expel waste from my body. some people have kidney disfigurements. sympathy. Religiosity is socio-mental scar tissue.

This is of course unverifiable gibberish, and that is my point.

you who blame God for man's failures, do you recognize the freedom of will in your own mind?

An omniscient and omnipotent God and free will are incompatible. Any God that allows "external" influences (what the hell would they be?) to alter the nature of reality is not omnipotent by definition.

do not associate me or any other piece of truth with your current misconceptions. you've got anti-christian prejudice so deep it seeps into your understanding of what christianity is, who Christ is, what He died for, and who God is.

I believe that Christianity purports to save one's soul from God's insufferable wrath due to actions that we take that anger God called sins. Curiously sins seem to correlate with what we could call antisocial behaviour. Christ is supposedly the conduit for a sinner to reach God by taking on a person's sins through an alleged sacrifice of his own life. This idea of substitution is very common in old forms of pagan magic - voodoo dolls are a more recent example of this phenomenon. The doll acts as a stand in for the person in question. So Christ died to save the souls of those that believe in Him. As for who God is, a common answer among the "nicer" Christians is that God is love. However God seems to be often involved with wrath and vengeance. Now why should we believe this? Honestly? We may as well believe in Lord Xenu (goddamn I hate scientologists).

you take the world for granted and think you live by right.

The world is granted by definition. Can you imagine existance without existance? It doesn't make sense. I try to live by right, meaning I attempt to create a coherent ethical system that does not harm others.

life is a gift. love is a gift.

Are death and hate gifts as well?

whatever

12-06-2005, 10:57 AM

damn, you said everything i wanted to say Nuke.

dittohead not!

12-06-2005, 01:04 PM

mataj

12-06-2005, 01:50 PM

He is referring to an algorithm, a formula for which the end result (so far, on our planet) is intelligence. When two and two go together, who is making the answer four?

It could be the same one who is doing the tinkering and testing.Again, there is no need for tinkering&testing to be done by someone. It can also be done by something, or by itself.

Evolution is a very simple process, which produces very complex & sophisticated results if repeated many times.

dittohead not!

12-06-2005, 02:02 PM

[QUOTE=dittohead not!]Again, there is no need for tinkering&testing to be done by someone. It can also be done by something, or by itself.

Evolution is a very simple process, which produces very complex & sophisticated results if repeated many times.

Tinkering and testing is happening on its own? Let's see. You have a random mutation, perhaps caused by a cosmic ray or something. The odds that it will actually enhance the survivablity of the organism's progeny must be trillions to one. Even if such a random mutation does happen on its own, then the progeny must successfully mate and that mutation has to be passed on to the next generation. The odds against such a thing happening even once on its own, let alone continuously and repeatedly, are enormous.

It's like the old argument that an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of typewriters.. (Let's update that to keybords) would eventually produce the literary works of mankind just by random chance over millions of years. There is no way to test such a theory, of course, but logic and reason balk at such an outcome.

Then again, there's the related idea that an infinite number of rednecks shooting an infinite number of roadsigns with an infinite number of shotguns would eventually produce all of mankinds literary works in Braille. Now, maybe we're on to something here. :D

mataj

12-06-2005, 04:22 PM

Tinkering and testing is happening on its own? Let's see. You have a random mutation, perhaps caused by a cosmic ray or something.No cosmic rays are necessary. Small random mutations happen all the time. No pair of twins or clones are equal.

The odds that it will actually enhance the survivablity of the organism's progeny must be trillions to one.That's pure speculation. Influence of mutations on organism's survivability is unknown.

Even if such a random mutation does happen on its own, then the progeny must successfully mate and that mutation has to be passed on to the next generation. The odds against such a thing happening even once on its own, let alone continuously and repeatedly, are enormous.The odds in favor of a succesful mutation are enormous either. One such mutation in entire population is enough, because it multiplies.

It's like the old argument that an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of typewriters.. (Let's update that to keybords) would eventually produce the literary works of mankind just by random chance over millions of years.That's another variation of classic creationistic straw man argument, similar to tornado assembling a jumbo jet from it's parts. Evolution does not happen this way.

Let me apply the same straw man fallacy, the same jumbo jet analogy to creation theory. Can you imagine a genius capable of drawing jumbo jet plan out of nothing, without any previous knowledge and experience, using his intelligence only? I'd say, that probability of something like this is not much higher than probability of tornado assembling the jumbo jet.

Similar to living organisms, complex machines are products of evolution too. Jumbo jet is result of a hundred years of experiments, tinkering, testing, and combining the succesful solutions. In biology, knowledge about survival accumulates in genes. In technology, knowledge about useful solutions accumulates in textbooks, plans, and expert's heads.

heel31ok

12-06-2005, 09:55 PM

That "argument" has been comprehensively demolished across several other threads here.
only in your own mind.

sub_zer0

12-06-2005, 09:58 PM

Let me apply the same straw man fallacy, the same jumbo jet analogy to creation theory. Can you imagine a genius capable of drawing jumbo jet plan out of nothing, without any previous knowledge and experience, using his intelligence only? I'd say, that probability of something like this is not much higher than probability of tornado assembling the jumbo jet.

It isn't just some genius being capable of drawing a jumbo jet out of nothing. It is God, big difference.

dittohead not!

12-06-2005, 10:07 PM

Similar to living organisms, complex machines are products of evolution too. Jumbo jet is result of a hundred years of experiments, tinkering, testing, and combining the succesful solutions. In biology, knowledge about survival accumulates in genes. In technology, knowledge about useful solutions accumulates in textbooks, plans, and expert's heads.

Yes, complex machines are products of evolution, and yes, it took intelligent guidance to develop those complex machines. The tinkering and testing was done by human beings, themselves the product of tinkering and testing on a more advanced scale.

sub_zer0

12-06-2005, 10:08 PM

Yes, complex machines are products of evolution, and yes, it took intelligent guidance to develop those complex machines. The tinkering and testing was done by human beings, themselves the product of tinkering and testing on a more advanced scale.

Most definately... Much more advanced scale, heh..

Void Image

12-06-2005, 10:16 PM

hommosexuality is deviation caused by injury. a genetically and socially healthy individual is not homosexual. just like my kidneys function properly to expel waste from my body. some people have kidney disfigurements. sympathy. homosexuality is socio-mental scar tissue.

do not associate me or any other piece of truth with your current misconceptions. you've got anti-christian prejudice so deep it seeps into your understanding of what christianity is, who Christ is, what He died for, and who God is.

Where the hell did that come from?

Also, there was someone else who had the idea that homosexuality is an 'injury' or a 'disorder'. For the second time, I will post this..

The weight of evidence In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980).

Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled by changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Their decision was supported in 1974 by a vote of the membership.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Unless your knowledge and understanding of psychological disorders is superior to the American Psychiatric Association, you are wrong.

I love how christians talk of loving everybody, tolerance, their own unfair persecution, and our own 'misconceptions'.

sub_zer0

12-06-2005, 10:23 PM

I love how christians talk of loving everybody, tolerance, their own unfair persecution, and our own 'misconceptions'.

I'm all for love everybody and tolerance. That doesn't mean that we can't have an opinion on such matters.

Void Image

12-06-2005, 10:29 PM

He is referring to an algorithm, a formula for which the end result (so far, on our planet) is intelligence. When two and two go together, who is making the answer four?

It could be the same one who is doing the tinkering and testing.

The point I was trying to make is that no one is MAKING the answer four. It JUST IS. It was never 'created'. There was no all powerful entity that someday said "I hereby declare, two and two is four.". Here's another question. Would two and two be four if we weren't here to observe the fact that two and two is four? It's a concept that applies to the physical world. Just like the evolution algorithm. It's a concept that applies to and describes the evolutionary process. Why is it so hard to believe that over the course of 15 BILLION years, eventually, a series of events would take place that would lead to another series of events, which would lead to another series of events, which would eventually through the algorithm explained above lead to an organism as complex as the human? Do you understand the amount of time that passes in a billion years? Fifteen billion years? Here's an experiment. Bang your head against your keyboard for fifteen billion years and see what comes up. Now, who created the results? You?

sub_zer0

12-06-2005, 10:39 PM

[QUOTE=dittohead not!]Why is it so hard to believe that over the course of 15 BILLION years, eventually, a series of events would take place that would lead to another series of events, which would lead to another series of events, which would eventually through the algorithm explained above lead to an organism as complex as the human? Do you understand the amount of time that passes in a billion years? Fifteen billion years?

But God did it all in 7 days... so it is VERY hard to believe that.

Billions of years, what a joke.

Void Image

12-06-2005, 10:48 PM

[QUOTE=Void Image]

But God did it all in 7 days... so it is VERY hard to believe that.

Billions of years, what a joke.

:rolleyes:

Seriously, it's so easy to believe God created the universe in seven days. I mean, come on, the fact that light travels at a constant, measured speed, and the fact that stars millions of light years away require millions of years before they can be visible from earth, takes nothing away from the argument that the universe is only 10,000 years old. I mean come on, isn't obvious that God is just MAKING it look like that? That old trickster. If it wasn't for Satan changing the rate of radioactive decay, it would be SO obvious. Billions of years, heh, come on, everyone knows the number billion doesn't even exist. Does the bible ever mention a billion? I don't think so. Billionaires don't count, they are servants of THE DEVIL! Praise Jesus! All you need is love! Hellfire to the unbelievers and the homosexuals!

dittohead not!

12-06-2005, 10:49 PM

[QUOTE=Void Image]

But God did it all in 7 days... so it is VERY hard to believe that.

Billions of years, what a joke.

Yes, it is very difficult to believe that God did it in 7 days, especially since the definition of day is the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis, which means that the creation of the Earth had to have taken place before there was such a thing as a "day". It is not difficult to believe that it took 7 periods of time to create the Earth and the life forms that were present at the dawn of modern humans, about 50,000 years ago. Just how long those periods of time were, we don't have any way of knowing. Time is immaterial to immortal beings at any rate.

sub_zer0

12-06-2005, 10:51 PM

Yes, it is very difficult to believe that God did it in 7 days, especially since the definition of day is the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis, which means that the creation of the Earth had to have taken place before there was such a thing as a "day". It is not difficult to believe that it took 7 periods of time to create the Earth and the life forms that were present at the dawn of modern humans, about 50,000 years ago. Just how long those periods of time were, we don't have any way of knowing. Time is immaterial to immortal beings at any rate.

No, it did not take 7 periods of time to create Earth and the life forms.

dittohead not!

12-06-2005, 10:53 PM

No, it did not take 7 periods of time to create Earth and the life forms.

And you know this because it says so in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is the word of God because it says so in the Old Testament.

Sorry. I just don't share your faith. Prove it.

sub_zer0

12-06-2005, 10:53 PM

And you know this because it says so in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is the word of God because it says so in the Old Testament.

Sorry. I just don't share your faith. Prove it.

No, no, you prove that it took 7 periods of time.

dittohead not!

12-06-2005, 10:56 PM

No, no, you prove that it took 7 periods of time.

At the risk of repeating myself, the term "day" means the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis. What did the term "day" mean before the Earth was created?

Soc.Dem.

12-06-2005, 11:12 PM

But God did it all in 7 days... so it is VERY hard to believe that.

Billions of years, what a joke.

:rolleyes: :shrug: :lol: :laughter: :rofl:

Dangerrmouse

12-07-2005, 12:01 AM

Are we dicussing Genesis version one, or two, and from which bible translation? I t's important to establish the size of the gridiron before the goal lines get moved around.

eugene40

12-07-2005, 02:21 AM

[QUOTE]hommosexuality is deviation caused by injury. a genetically and socially healthy individual is not homosexual. just like my kidneys function properly to expel waste from my body. some people have kidney disfigurements. sympathy. homosexuality is socio-mental scar tissue.

Sheesh.

you who blame God for man's failures, do you recognize the freedom of will in your own mind?
Don't believe in god,,, so I really don't think he is to blame for mans failures,

do not associate me or any other piece of truth with your current misconceptions.
There called questions, if you can't handle them. then maybe you might want to think it over some more.

you've got anti-christian prejudice so deep it seeps into your understanding of what christianity is, who Christ is, what He died for, and who God is.
No prejudice I merely think it is a collective imaginary friend. Christ was probably a guy but nothing moer, he died because the romans didn't like him, and God is something to give people a nice warm feeling in their bellys so that they don't think this life is alone.

you take the world for granted and think you live by right.
I take nothing for granted actually, I appreciate my time on this planet and I appreciate all things natural, unnatural,, and some things that damn well should be natural. I love life, life it to its fullest,,,, have known pains and loves and exhilarations, and physical pleasures that you probably haven't. I perhaps am more worldy. more experienced, and have lived more. Not by a set of BS rules put down in a silly book hundreds of years ago. Or bound by some law that doesn't exist to go to a place that exists merely in a fairy tale.

life is a gift. love is a gift.
Life is not a give,, it is our own to do what we will with it. Some live it to the extremes and some live it by a book. I choose the former. I agree love is a gift,, but it is given merely by another, not some mythic figure sitting on a cloud.

Now you haven't been here as long as I have.. One of my explanations I had for my perspective of religion and why I respond to religious threads is actually to find out what I have that religious people lack. I have no space that religion would fill or need to fill. I wonder what makes you different from I. From your writing it is extremely apparent that you need a God in your life. I really don't have a need for it. It seems silly to me.

mataj

12-07-2005, 05:20 AM

It isn't just some genius being capable of drawing a jumbo jet out of nothing. It is God, big difference.Jumbo jets don't get assembled by tornadoes, and they don't get contrived from scratch either. The same goes for life.

Yes, complex machines are products of evolution, and yes, it took intelligent guidance to develop those complex machines. The tinkering and testing was done by human beings, themselves the product of tinkering and testing on a more advanced scale.Not more advanced scale, but larger scale.

Intelligent guidance, that develops complex machines is based on knowledge gained from past mistakes. Jumbo jets couldn't fly without Wright brothers, and Wright brothers couldn't fly without a whole bunch of people tinkering with such contraptions http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Chanute/library/Prog_Illustrations.html. Educated intuition based on analytical thinking can speed up the development, but it's not essential. It goes without it as well. It just takes a bit more tinkering & testing.

Oh, and before you try to estimate a probability of finding solution this way, try to grasp the concept of serial probability first. You know, the old "if you've rolled dice ten times, and got all sices, what's the probability of getting six eleventh time" one. Namely nothing gets tinkered from scratch. Known solutions are combined in a new way, and tinkered with. That's how evolution goes, as well as R&D.

whatever

12-07-2005, 09:40 AM

No, no, you prove that it took 7 periods of time.

neither of you can prove it.
so it is more plausible that the world and it's creatures were made in 7 "days"?
imagine if you don't have the bible to tell you what to think, what would you say?

sub_zer0

12-07-2005, 03:25 PM

neither of you can prove it.
so it is more plausible that the world and it's creatures were made in 7 "days"?
imagine if you don't have the bible to tell you what to think, what would you say?

Than I would listen to man. Until then I will listen to Gods word.

Strel

12-07-2005, 03:39 PM

Than I would listen to man. Until then I will listen to Gods word.

Or rather, you choose to listen to a translation of someone's hearsay opinion of what God's word was.

You are hopeless.

::Major_Baker::

12-07-2005, 03:50 PM

mataj

12-07-2005, 06:50 PM

Than I would listen to man. Until then I will listen to Gods word.Col 2:8 , huh?

sub_zer0

12-07-2005, 08:36 PM

Col 2:8 , huh?

That comment was directed more towards this part of his post...

imagine if you don't have the bible to tell you what to think, what would you say?

I mean what else would I have? Unless God was still manifesting Himself through profits in this time... Basically for whatever to ask that he is asking me to not believe in God.

sub_zer0

12-07-2005, 08:38 PM

Or rather, you choose to listen to a translation of someone's hearsay opinion of what God's word was.

You are hopeless.

No, I choose to listen to a translation from actual text that was written by someone who claims he is and the book is divinely inspired by God. It has proven just that, to me, time and time again!

Strel

12-07-2005, 09:17 PM

No, I choose to listen to a translation from actual text that was written by someone who claims he is and the book is divinely inspired by God. It has proven just that, to me, time and time again!

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the important words.

And nothing was proven to you, you simply chose to believe. Is that not faith?

sub_zer0

12-07-2005, 09:52 PM

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the important words.

And nothing was proven to you, you simply chose to believe. Is that not faith?

What the Bible is today is a direct rendering or translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Holy Bible which were the original autographs.... point blank. Sure things were proven to me, prophecies, historically accurate, no contrradictions, etc, etc...

whatever

12-08-2005, 08:46 AM

That comment was directed more towards this part of his post...

I mean what else would I have? Unless God was still manifesting Himself through profits in this time... Basically for whatever to ask that he is asking me to not believe in God.

nope i'm asking you not to take the bible literally word for word, many who believe in god can still be quite sensible.

Strel

12-08-2005, 11:10 AM

What the Bible is today is a direct rendering or translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Holy Bible which were the original autographs.... point blank. Sure things were proven to me, prophecies, historically accurate, no contrradictions, etc, etc...

Then answer this, where reality conflicts with the text of the Bible - where as aspect of the world that can (and is) proven to be true contradicts something in the Bible, do you choose to believe the Bible instead of reality?

Every time a contradiction, error, or discrepancy is pointed out to you, you squirm and wriggle your arguments, change the rules, alter definitions and otherwise engage in any number of intellectually fraudulent techniques to protect your "faith" in the inerrancy and literal interpretation of the Bible.

If your belief is so valid, why does it take so much effort to maintain it, when reality shows the opposite to be true?

No one is asking you to stop believing in God. Heck the non-existence of God cannot be proven (which is why I am not an atheist).

But literal interpretation of Genesis against a mountain of scientific evidence just strikes me as willful stupidity.

::Major_Baker::

12-08-2005, 11:22 AM

Then answer this, where reality conflicts with the text of the Bible - where as aspect of the world that can (and is) proven to be true contradicts something in the Bible, do you choose to believe the Bible instead of reality?

Every time a contradiction, error, or discrepancy is pointed out to you, you squirm and wriggle your arguments, change the rules, alter definitions and otherwise engage in any number of intellectually fraudulent techniques to protect your "faith" in the inerrancy and literal interpretation of the Bible.

If your belief is so valid, why does it take so much effort to maintain it, when reality shows the opposite to be true?

No one is asking you to stop believing in God. Heck the non-existence of God cannot be proven (which is why I am not an atheist).

But literal interpretation of Genesis against a mountain of scientific evidence just strikes me as willful stupidity.

very good post. Sub Zero, you need to be honest with yourself.