BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 10:03 AM

Nothing to do with the thread, but as I am being referenced I thought it's about time I said DMcG is a shortened form of Dave McGlade. The very first time I used the internet it was in the ARPANet days and the computer only allowed four-letter user names so I've stuck with it ever since. It is not any attempt to hide my identity or stand apart from those who choose to use their actual names.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 09:54 AM

Steve Shaw
Your point about Newton has no relevance to the point of mine you're attempting to connect it with.

I really don't know why you are having trouble with this Steve, it's really very straightforward.

pete suggested that Newton could not be considered a great scientist because of some of his unscientific views.

DMcG responded to pete by saying that "people of the given time work within the understanding of that time and it is basically deceitful to judge them by today.".

You disagreed with DMcG saying that "The "of his time" excuse is a popular fallback. but then diverted the issue into discussions of racism, homophobia, and mysogyny rather than scientific understanding which is what was being discussed.

The question is really quite simple. Do you agree with DMcG that Newton can be excused his stranger ideas, some of which appear to have been governed by a belief in the absolute truth in the Bible, because they were the understanding of that time or do you agree with pete that he should not be regarded as a great scientist because of his, by modern standards, unscientific ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 08:57 AM

Ah you see... Trying to be helpful as there are some who would pick up on such matters to twist them to prove their tenuous point, or in the case of one fool, use it to prove the other person is a liar. (No names but he lives in Hertford, gives thanks every Sunday and can name every historian there has ever been.)*

The stakes in this thread are high! (Although the OP was merely a funny cartoon. Religious cartoons can be dangerous, as readers of Jesus & Mo will testify.)




* or at least every one that he can pick and choose snippets to support his establishment view.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 08:50 AM

Musket: Ok, I abbreviated, so I'll try and expand things out a bit. Evolution as a concept has been around for a very long time - in the simplest form of creatures changing over time according to how they breed it is probably as old as farming. But what was needed on top of that was an explanation of how, why and what the consequences could be. There were numerous explainations over time until Darwin gave his version, so people who don't stop and think about it often conflate evolution and Darwin's-explanation-of-evolution. So when pete says people in the distant past weren't evolutionists it is important to distiguish between evolution-as-understood-before-Darwin and evolution-as-understood-post-Darwin (and indeed evolution-post-our-understanding-of-genetics).

And I squeezed all that into the word 'Darwinist'. Humpty-Dumpty would be proud [but I may have to pay the word extra! :) ]

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 08:40 AM

Dawkin's what?

What is a Darwinist?

All rather odd?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 07:48 AM

Oops! Guest just above at 07:43 AM was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 07:43 AM

on the point of historical figures of their time, and dawkins referencing believers in odin and suchlike. somehow I doubt if such devotees of ancient gods were evolutionists, but probably instinctively knew there was a creator[s], though not knowing of the biblical God. so what exactly was dawkins point?

Quite so, pete. I don't think Dawkin's really has a point when he says that. Its sole purpose as far as I can see is to confuse the opponent about how to respond. Dawkins is capable of a very high standard of reasoned argument, so when he plays verbal games like that I shake my head with disappointment.

But as a brief aside, I wouldn't assume the Vikings and co were not 'evolutionists'. Certainly they were not Darwinists - how could they be? - but the idea of evolution is much much older than Darwin, you know. "All" Darwin did was describe a mechanism whereby the already-belived-in evolution could work and lead to speciation. My memory of the Eddas needs refreshing but I don't recall the creation stories they contain saying anything at all about how the various different animals were created. Man, yes; animal, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:39 AM

You're probably right there, Musket! I suppose that it's too much to ask pete to step out into the 'real world' and to buy the book in Waterstone's or on Amazon ??

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:33 AM

Shimrod, I doubt The Greatest Show on Earth is available in Christian Science bookshops.

I reckon it is popular at book burnings though.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:10 AM

Well, it was religion that I was specifically thinking about. Of course I agree on the non-religious stuff, but that is hardly what my point was about.

I thought it was about people being prepared to stick to their views in the full knowledge of potential risks. I see no reason to separate one belief system from another in that regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:44 AM

" ... some posters ... insinuate that believing in creation takes away the development of science and its practioners, and consequently creation believing scientists must be silenced, and only evolutionism taught. this idea is false, as the accomplishments of creationist scientists, past and present, evidence.

pete:

1. Believing in "creation" (rather than evolution) DOES "take away" from the development of science - or, at least, has the dangerous potential to do so.

2. There is no such thing as a "creation scientist" - the term is an oxymoron - as has been explained to you many, many, many, many times!!

3. I don't think that anyone is trying to "silence" "creation believing scientists" (whatever they may be) - if anything, the boot is on the other foot - it's creationists who would like to ban the teaching of evolution in schools!

4. "creation scientists" (whatever they may be) have accomplished NOTHING - except to belittle the findings of thousands of 'real' scientists and to illustrate the dangers of fundamentalist religion to our culture.

Have you read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:30 PM

When and if you start writing your little rants in plain English, I guess we will find that out.

"As for your educating me, I shall nick and twist a phrase of Musket's: I can't be educated by pork."

A reasonable man would be alarmed at his need to be educated by "pork" but I don't think that anyone on this forum thinks that you are behaving as a reasonable man.

"As for pointless forums, it's people like you and Snail who love to twist what other people say who make them pointless."

You said this forum is pointless. Now you say it is about snail and me. You said that pete deserves to be vilified when he comes here. You also say that you insult people because you enjoy it. If you think that the Mudcat is pointless why don't you find yourself another forum? You could also try to consider it less pointless. But I'll tell you, picking fights with people, calling people names, blustering and bragging rather than conversing are not ways to do that. Why don't you take a couple of deep breaths before you post and try to think how your words affect other people?

Have you considered that people are not twisting what you say, but they are missing your intention because your tone is usually angry and you do not communicate very well when you are angry?

Well, fellas, whatever other shortcomings you think I betray, is a lack of ability to type plain English one of them? Seriously now, Wackers darling. You are hardly the one to be criticising anyone else for their inability to express themselves clearly now, are you? If I wanted to I could have a field day going over your posts pointing out the grammatical, spelling and constructional inanities therein. In that regard at least you are a very black pot calling a really nice shiny copper kettle black. And another thing. Your posts in general are sounding more and more inane as time goes on. Certainly obsessive (probably a cover-up for something lacking, one supposes). Nay, almost hysterical, one might say. In the words of Call-Me-Dave, calm down dear (and I think I can say that without sexist overtones as I think you may well be male).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:17 PM

What I think, snailieboy, is that you're wriggling around searching for disagreement for the sake of it in a very sour-grapes fashion. I find that to be incredibly tedious. Your point about Newton has no relevance to the point of mine you're attempting to connect it with. Just read more carefully. Life's too short, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:13 PM

If you don't mind, I won't do that because I don't think it will add to the debate. In fact, I think it would detract from it. But I'm sure if you think back over the last 50 or 100 years you won't go short of people in the UK who were imprisoned for actions they took because of political views - I exclude religious beliefs to avoid muddying the waters. Yes, we can hair-split whether they were jailed for the actions or the beliefs that led to those actions, but I think that would be unproductive. And in the US, thanks to McCarthyism, there is an even more direct link to people being punished for views, rather than actions.

Well, it was religion that I was specifically thinking about. Of course I agree on the non-religious stuff, but that is hardly what my point was about.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:42 PM

"Pete. I think you're complicating the idea a lot; the point is simply that virtually everybody, in whatever time and culture, believes that what they are taught from childhood is the truth; at least they start out that way as children, and in many cases they remain that way throughout life."

The problem with that FP, is that Pete was indoctrinated later in life and is a "born again" YEC

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:39 PM

"this idea is false, as the accomplishments of creationist scientists, past and present, evidence."

1. There is no such thing as Creation Science, since scientific analysis and method cannot be applied to the existence or non existence of a creator.

2. Some of the scientists who believe in a creator, may still apply scientific analysis in their field and may even espouse the process of evolution.

3. None of those who believe in Young Earth Creation are Paleontologists, geologists or any other discipline relating to Earth's age or origin. Some may be proficient in branches of science which bear no relation to same.

Delve into your Creationist websites and produce one Creationist paleontologist of any stature.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:00 PM

Pete. I think you're complicating the idea a lot; the point is simply that virtually everybody, in whatever time and culture, believes that what they are taught from childhood is the truth; at least they start out that way as children, and in many cases they remain that way throughout life.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:18 PM

dmcg - I could well be mistaken but I think you missed the point I was trying to make. some posters [ and Nye at the debate] insinuate that believing in creation takes away the development of science and its practioners, and consequently creation believing scientists must be silenced, and only evolutionism taught. this idea is false, as the accomplishments of creationist scientists, past and present, evidence.

on the point of historical figures of their time, and dawkins referencing believers in odin and suchlike. somehow I doubt if such devotees of ancient gods were evolutionists, but probably instinctively knew there was a creator[s], though not knowing of the biblical God. so what exactly was dawkins point?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 02:44 PM

Steve Shaw
I did not take exception.
Previously -
Well it don't wash with me.

That sounds to me like taking exception.

In a discussion about the reasons for and consequences of some of Newton's more off the wall scientific ideas, you leapt in with you claim that thinkers "out of the box" of any age should and would espouse the modern liberal values which, I presume, you hold yourself. Apart from being irrelevant to the immediate discussion, I think the suggestion is wildly optimistic.

Newton had a go at calculating the date of creation from the chronology of the Bible. He came up with a different result from Ussher but not enormously so. He also said -
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Both perfectly reasonable things to do by the standards of the time but enough to discredit him as a scientist in this day and age. What do you think.

Apart from that, I don't think I can better DMcG's post of 09 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM .

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 02:22 PM

You say that the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens don't compare. Well, who would you compare them with from past ages in any case? If you want to make comparisons, do make them fair.

If you don't mind, I won't do that because I don't think it will add to the debate. In fact, I think it would detract from it. But I'm sure if you think back over the last 50 or 100 years you won't go short of people in the UK who were imprisoned for actions they took because of political views - I exclude religious beliefs to avoid muddying the waters. Yes, we can hair-split whether they were jailed for the actions or the beliefs that led to those actions, but I think that would be unproductive. And in the US, thanks to McCarthyism, there is an even more direct link to people being punished for views, rather than actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 12:18 PM

"
I did not take exception. I raised a point about which I had some reservations."

consider that if you had said "I have reservations about this point" at the time you would not be bickering with thesnail now over what you meant to say then.

Calm down, take a breath before you post. Consider how you attitude gets in the way of clear communication.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 10:49 AM

"which for you to address is your apparent total lack of comprehension of plain English."

When and if you start writing your little rants in plain English, I guess we will find that out.

"As for your educating me, I shall nick and twist a phrase of Musket's: I can't be educated by pork."

A reasonable man would be alarmed at his need to be educated by "pork" but I don't think that anyone on this forum thinks that you are behaving as a reasonable man.

"As for pointless forums, it's people like you and Snail who love to twist what other people say who make them pointless."

You said this forum is pointless. Now you say it is about snail and me. You said that pete deserves to be vilified when he comes here. You also say that you insult people because you enjoy it. If you think that the Mudcat is pointless why don't you find yourself another forum? You could also try to consider it less pointless. But I'll tell you, picking fights with people, calling people names, blustering and bragging rather than conversing are not ways to do that. Why don't you take a couple of deep breaths before you post and try to think how your words affect other people?

Have you considered that people are not twisting what you say, but they are missing your intention because your tone is usually angry and you do not communicate very well when you are angry?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:12 AM

Mmmm. My post about Newton seems to have got lost in the ether.

Never mind.

At least my resident troll won't pop up to say he'd checked on google and I was wrong.

Pity really. My own research into mechanical vibration many moons ago didn't need to take quantum mechanics into account, as Newtonian physics is fit for purpose in such matters.

My point being you don't judge one aspect by another. Newton may have learnt Hebrew in order to go looking for the ark of the covenant but beforehand he wrote on forces , optics and calculus.

I think I may have had a pop at Steve's football delusions in my original answer too.

Bugger. Where is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:59 AM

"So, Wacko, when have I ever implied that, never mind stated it in any post?"

"it was OK to be a bit of a racist in the 50s and 60s and make Paki jokes because we were "of our time". Well it don't wash with me. The best people of this or any other time were independent of mind and were well able to think outside the box, and, if they were bold enough, to speak outside the box."

You are saying that you were independent and thought out side the box aren't you? Or do you not understand your own prose?

And you think this somehow equates with your claim that I think I'm "one of the best people in the world"? Never mind my prose: you have far more serious issues than that confronting you, the first of which for you to address is your apparent total lack of comprehension of plain English.

As for your educating me, I shall nick and twist a phrase of Musket's: I can't be educated by pork.

As for pointless forums, it's people like you and Snail who love to twist what other people say who make them pointless. I seem to spend about half my time here telling you that I didn't say what you said I said. And that's pointless. And that's in spite of the fact that I type in clear, plain English. You're like a big kid, Wackers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:46 AM

I did not take exception. I raised a point about which I had some reservations. Surely you're old enough to not see everything in black and white and to stop the wilful misrepresentations. As for Newton, I know all about his idiocies as well as his great science and I have mentioned them before. So what precisely are you disagreeing with me about this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 05:06 AM

Steve Shaw
So when have I ever brought Isaac up?

You didn't, you joined in an existing discussion about him.

pete said -
it must be beyond belief that newton among many others past and present could be such great scientists, as they supposedly held unscientific views.

DMcG replied -
Both of those arguing understand that people of the given time work within the understanding of that time

You took exception to this and launched into a song of praise to those who think out of the box. I'm afraid Newton wasn't like that. To his credit, he recognised his debt to other thinkers - "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.". On the other hand, he was an alchemist and a religious fanatic holding views that were more 'before his time' than 'of his time'. As Master of the Royal Mint, he pursued the highest penalty against counterfeiters (hanging, drawing and quartering.). Not quite the happy picture you paint.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 12:51 AM

When I was a child, I played as a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things...".

We are raised in cultures, and we take them aboard consciously or osmotically. When we become our own persons, we have a responsibility to be aware of the cuutral agreements wehave inherited and be prepared to jettison them if in the light of new reflection they appear distortive, or harmful, or short of the best we can imagine.

Some folks do this industriously, some do it kicking and squalling like the small children they presumably no longer are.

But we all gotta do it. With due regard to the maxim about babies and bathwaters, we have to let go harmful agreements or short-sighted beliefs and seek something better. Just like cells, memes need to evolve to meet changing conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 12:00 AM

"The best people of this or any other time were independent of mind and were well able to think outside the box, and, if they were bold enough, to speak outside the box." Steve Shaw

That brings up something I have considered from time to time.

I came to the conclusion that we really cannot fault a human being for being a product of their time. It is when a person is either behind or ahead of his or her time that it is remarkable.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:56 PM

"So, Wacko, when have I ever implied that, never mind stated it in any post?"

"it was OK to be a bit of a racist in the 50s and 60s and make Paki jokes because we were "of our time". Well it don't wash with me. The best people of this or any other time were independent of mind and were well able to think outside the box, and, if they were bold enough, to speak outside the box."

You are saying that you were independent and thought out side the box aren't you? Or do you not understand your own prose?


"(though we see vilification by stupid gits such as pete and Wacko on pointless internet forums, etc., of course)."

I am not vilifying you my friend. I am educating you. I am asking for you to learn and follow simple rules and I am kindly suggesting that you stop making a fool of yourself.

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

"pointless internet forums" Did you really mean to say that? I guess your attitude towards this forum explains your stubborn disrespect for the rules of this forum and its members. You say you insult people because you enjoy it. If I had not seen you playing harmonica in a video, I'd think that I was talking to a 12 year old girl.

There are plenty of places on the Internet when you can go to be snotty and insult people. Perhaps it would be better for all if you spewed your vitriol there and used this "pointless" forum only to share your music.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:15 PM

Mr. Shaw, you seem to be trying to tell us that you are one of the best people of our time. Congratulations! Do you have any validation of this that is external to your own ego? A certificate perhaps?

So, Wacko, when have I ever implied that, never mind stated it in any post? As you well know, humility is my middle name and I don't mind shouting that from every rooftop. Tell you what, Wacko Jacko, babe. If you wish to accuse someone of something, do make sure that they have actually done it first. Otherwise I fear I might have to start parroting the "Forum Rules" at you. (Don't worry: joke. I wouldn't dream of stooping so low). Now, Wackers, ol' fruit, are you going to apologise for misrepresenting me?

Steve Shaw, it might be an idea if you did a bit of research about Isaac Newton.

So when have I ever brought Isaac up? Do apprise me, Helix aspersa, of that to which you refer. You puzzle me but you do not trouble me, as you know, so no need to rush.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:03 PM

There are certainly people throughout history we were prepared to speak 'outside the box', were in a tiny minority, and were prepared to suffer for making their views known.

Quite so, but I think you may have hit the nail on the head when you say they were prepared to suffer. Too right. House arrest, imprisonment, torture, martyrdom, ostracism, etc. We hardly see that in western culture (though we see vilification by stupid gits such as pete and Wacko on pointless internet forums, etc., of course). You say that the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens don't compare. Well, who would you compare them with from past ages in any case? If you want to make comparisons, do make them fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 06:01 PM

CORRECTION

about the 18-19 minute mark of PART 2

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:58 PM

Very well put DcMG.

Below is a link to an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, famous astronomer who will be the host of the current remake of the series "The Cosmos" around the 18-19 minute mark he discusses religion and science and talks about Newton being a person "of his time" from a slightly different and IMHO very interesting perspective. I'm thinking of starting a thread about the interview. But I haven't seen it all yet.

http://vimeo.com/83816085


This is part 2.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-religion-and-the-universe/

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM

I take your point, Steve, but I am not seeking to excuse or justify anyone. [And certainly not the racism, homophobia and the rest of the past and present, but talking about that will take this thread even further from the original topic.]

Pete raised the point that Newton had some very unscientific ideas alongside the very scientific ones. To which my answer is: yes, he did. That's not surprising given when and where he lived. We can recognise and (should we so choose) praise the scientific work despite this. Similarly, we can praise an artist for his paintings or sculptures even if he was a reprobate in his personal life. These things are separable, and praise of one does not imply praise of the other.

And, though I'm sure you won't like it, it is a common idea in religion that earlier forms are less complete revelations, and anyone who genuinely tried to follow that earlier understanding can be praised for it. It is absurd to think 'if you had lived then you would believe that' is a sensible criticism because the believer's answer should be exactly the same as for Newton: Yes I would. That's how it was then.


There are certainly people throughout history we were prepared to speak 'outside the box', were in a tiny minority, and were prepared to suffer for making their views known. Many of them were most admirable; some were decidedly not. I greatly admire Thomas Paine, for example, who was one hardly feted in the UK, and who took immense risks throughout his life to express his views. I do not see Dawkins and Hitchens as anything remotely similar, somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:30 PM

Steve Shaw, it might be an idea if you did a bit of research about Isaac Newton.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:08 PM

Mr. Shaw, you seem to be trying to tell us that you are one of the best people of our time. Congratulations! Do you have any validation of this that is external to your own ego? A certificate perhaps?


You are of course entitled to your opinion. But I am a bit of a skeptic.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 04:41 PM

Both of those arguing understand that people of the given time work within the understanding of that time

Hmm. The "of his time" excuse is a popular fallback. It was OK to be a bit of a racist in the 50s and 60s and make Paki jokes because we were "of our time". Well it don't wash with me. The best people of this or any other time were independent of mind and were well able to think outside the box, and, if they were bold enough, to speak outside the box. Now the speaking was the hard bit, but the thinking - well, there's no excuse for racism, for example, or, shall we mention homophobia, or mysogyny, either now or way back then. In either case you are losing love for your fellow humans. Plus ca change and all that, as people such as Richard Dawkins and Hitchens, the ones bold enough to speak outside the box, against the tide, who challenge received wisdom, are the ones most vilified today, just as they always have been throughout history. "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 03:31 PM

Musket,

I've been saying for a while that Religion, for the most part is the excuse for the bad behavior. So I agree with where your post is going.

I would also agree that someone like Ham who might credibly saying that "all the answers are in the Bible" when the questions are about, peace of mind, forgiveness and human interaction. But if the question is "Why do Kangaroos have pouches?" Saying "Because God made them that way." is not the most satisfying or credible answer.

It is a lot harder to point to the wisdom in the Bible when one's focus is presenting societal myth as literal scientific truth. I wouldn't call that an "attack" per se. But it is a very poor strategy. I don't know if it undermines the Bible so much as it undermines the people making the case for Kangaroos walking from Palestine to Sydney.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:36 PM

You can attack inadvertently. By inviting people to point out the fairy tale aspect and note how dangerous dogged belief in superstition can be, you do the book of tales, which have done so much to shape society, no favours whatsoever.

Whilst war and persecution is usually for the purpose of controlling others, the perpetrators rely on telling ignorant people that God tells them to massacre on his behalf.

If we didn't have religion, we'd only have to invent it. Opiate of the masses and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:20 PM

I wouldn't think that defending the Bible's veracity as a science text is attacking it per se. It many not be the best place to invest your time if your goal is to spread the gospel. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:56 PM

Shimrod beat me to it.

There is nothing to disprove in the bible.

It is an ancient book that tells us plenty about how people thought in the past. I can't say I have read it, but I have been told it also shows the literature prowess in the days of King James I.

Sadly, some people do it discredit and damage the beauty by trying to give it status it clearly doesn't have. This can only result in intelligent rational people scoffing, not at the bible but the simpleminded people who spoil a story. The bible gets caught in the cross fire.

The person who attacks the bible most here is pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 10:43 AM

"this wont be the first and it wont be the last attack on the bible .
some people seem hellbent on trying to disprove it. "

This is such a silly statement, I don't know where to begin. You Creationists and the putative 'Bible disprovers' deserve each other!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 10:08 AM

As short time ago pete claimed that no lion remains have been found in Israel. That seemed unlikely to me but who cares right? But yesterday, there was a program on tv about lines where it said that at one point that lions were the most widespread mammal on the Earth their range spread far beyond Africa.

Seeing the argument repeated I found this in a Google search.

No lions in Israel?

Here is an interesting quote.

"More recent archaeological excavation confirms this:

"The largest faunal collections and most intensive archaeo-zoological research for [the Chalcolithic] period have been carried out in the northern Negev. This biological data provides us with a detailed picture of human/animal relations during this formative period. … If Shiqmim is taken as a representative sample for the valley, sheep … and goat … make up over 90 percent of the faunal assemblage with the remaining 10 percent consisting of cattle, … dog, equid and ca. 3.8 percent of wild animals (gazelle, hartebeest, hippopotamus, lion, small cat, fox, hare, ostrich, bird and fish). (The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. Thomas Levy, New York, Continuum, 1998, pp. 231-32)""

I wonder where the idea of no lion remains in Israel came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 09:27 AM

t must be beyond belief that newton among many others past and present could be such great scientists, as they supposedly held unscientific views.

Funny you should say that: it is the mirror image of one of Dawkin's "arguments" where he tries to discomfort believers by saying had they lived at another place and time they would be defending belief on Loki and Odin.

Both arguments are equally rhetorical tricks, not logic. Both of those arguing understand that people of the given time work within the understanding of that time and it is basically deceitful to judge them by today.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:44 AM

this wont be the first and it wont be the last attack on the bible .
some people seem hellbent on trying to disprove it. not that all of them will admit to their crusading spirit.
meanwhile the same people get very upset, or so it appears, when challenged to defend the glaring flaws in the general theory of evolution.
to hear some posters definition of science , it must be beyond belief that newton among many others past and present could be such great scientists, as they supposedly held unscientific views.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 03:42 AM

"This is such a great example of how hungry some people are to decry the veracity of the Bible. After all, a good amount of news organizations have heralded this research as a fatal blow to scripture."

I have no desire to "decry the veracity of the Bible". That would imply that I give any sort of shit about the Bible - apart from the fact that some people insist on taking it literally.

My reasons for drawing people's attention to the 'anachronistic camels' piece were partly provocative and partly mischievous. The Creationists, who are desperate to believe that everything in the Bible is true, and represents absolute truth, insist on also believing that science is a competing form of absolute truth. They continually 'nit-pick' scientific findings in the belief that if they find enough 'flaws' the edifice of science (particularly evolutionary biology) will crumble and the Bible will 'win'.

The 'camels' piece demonstrates that you can (if you give a shit) employ the same tactics with respect to the Bible. My guess, though, is that the Bible is a mix of (translated, re-translated and mis-translated) historical accounts, myths and legends. To take it literally is as absurd as attempting to destroy the edifice of modern science by obsessively searching for 'flaws'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:42 AM

I do find things a bit odd about it though, Keith. The references to UKIP suggest you are in the UK. There is certainly a Hertford in the UK as well. I know of a Hartford, but not a Hertford in Alabama. We agree that all it would take is a few moments thinking about it to come up with similar arguments. So why go via "Kyle [Beshears who] is a pastor at the People of Mars Hill in Mobile, AL" rather than simply state your own view?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:36 AM

Yawn....

Keep wearing us down Keith. It's your usual way of defending the indefensible.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:16 AM

DMcG, the words are not mine but they express my view on the findings.

I found the article patronising: it seemed to contain nothing that a few moments wouldn't also have revealed to anyone bothered enough to think about it.

I agree.
There should be not need to write it, but there clearly are many people who do not bother to think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:12 AM

Then you try telling us you aren't signed up to a pseudo political party ?

You mean UKIP.
I am not a member or even a supporter.
If I were, I would probably promote them in my posts.

I did once post a quote from their site.
We were discussing what their view about something was so I Googled it.
That is your entire case that I am a member.