BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:11 PM

Demand, Jack? Who is demanding anything? See, I can play silly word games as well. Albeit not as well as you. Still, while we are at it, no one mentioned Nazi scientists coaching Hitler either. Where on earth did you dream that one up? The wording was "Championing the idea of a master race, didn't go out of style with the Nazis." Surely that means it is still in style and not exclusive to the Nazis, doesn't it?

If this is what is passing as argument nowadays give me simple contradiction anytime.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:27 PM

No Dave, I think that Stim was saying that the NAZI "Scientists" were publishing materials and coaching Hitler to use race as an excuse to kill people. It was Hitler who actually urged people to kill. It was not due to their disagreeing with his dogma. Though I am sure that some were killed for that. It was because his "scientists" were saying that their race was "inferior."

I can understand why Stim was not inclined to respond to your demand to...

"Point me to the section where it says kill everyone who disagrees with this dogma."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:18 PM

Steve, congratulations on getting out of your house. TheSnail and I are nominating you for the Nobel prize in busywork as I type this.

It is my pleasure to report that it is you who is stooping to the use of name calling. It is also my pleasure to report to you that your obnoxious behavior is against the rules of this forum and very disrespectful to Max and every polite member of this forum.

Furthermore, please continue to act like an ass because I enjoy it when you are so clearly in the wrong but continue to break the rules and I get to point that out.

I am also eagerly awaiting the moment when you say something more reasoned than calling people names and implying that they are wrong.

and finally, you have with your last post, lost another contest in the battle of wits. I would gloat, but it doesn't seem sporting when you are not trying. You're like a duck sticking his little pointy head up to the shotgun and daring me to shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:00 PM

Found a bony fish in the Burgess Shale yet Pete? A horse in the Solnhofen? An indricothere in the Jehol? Bet you haven't even got off your backside to go and look.

He hasn't. He hasn't even read the man whose work he constantly disses, Charles Darwin. He is the most dishonest (to himself, mostly) and lazy person who posts in these threads by a country mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:00 PM

Can you quote Stim saying that scientists urge people to kill?

Maybe not, Jack, but I can quote Stim calling some scientists racists and likening them to Nazis.

Haven't you ever heard of "Scientific Racism"? Championing the idea of a master race, didn't go out of style with the Nazis.

You seem to be having problems with actual wording versus meaning again Jack. Or maybe it is me. Either way I believe the implication is that these scientists are akin to hate preachers, who you have already accepted urge people to kill. The implication is that they do the same thing. The reality is that they do not.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

"It is just contradiction. I thought that Monty Python had settled this question many years ago. "


Musket, I believe the word I USED is "contradiction." See you in the funny papers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:56 PM

I wasn't aware I'd lost any arguments. Or won any, for that matter. I don't post here with any of that in mind. Also, I don't hover over my keyboard all day like a hawk, as Wacko appears to, ready to pounce on the next reply as soon as it arrives. I've been doing a bit of shopping, cooking, reading up on stuff, playing a tune or six, listening to some Schumann, Mozart and Grainger, snoozing (it's my age) and going to see the lovely big waves that are currently ransacking our Cornish coastline. It's called "getting out more", Wacko. I suppose coming to the computer for the first time today so late on does have the disadvantage of my having to read all at once a load of guff from several sour-grapes merchants, but hey ho.   

I have no way of knowing obviously that for simple organisms and genes that all combinations of the 4 DNA letters have been tried.

So why did you say it then? And what's with this "tried" nonsense? Actually, what does this whole nonsensical sentence mean?

Snailieboy, I neither want nor care about your near-sympathy. You rarely make any sort of substantial point because you're obsessed with having a go at me (don't stop, I do enjoy it), simply because I stated, accurately, that evolution is true. I haven't counted, but I reckon at a guess that about 80% to 90% of your recent posts mention me, often in that rather portentous and silly way you have of typing my name in bold at the head of the post. Now my having said it again about evolution, there's little doubt that you'll go off on it all over again. I've just made myself a giant stack of popcorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:44 PM

"what reading I have done reveals amazing complexity in the workings of a cell. just by accident! you got greater faith than me!"

This your personal incredulity in the face of overwhelming evidence. Just because you can't understand it is irrelevant.


"like all those likely to decay in lot less than millions of years, materials in dino bone"

This has been discussed at length on other threads, and I'm guessing you still haven't read a thing about it from the scientist (a Christian as it happens, not that it's relevant), that has done the research. This is actually quiet amusing, but I'm not telling you why.

Found a bony fish in the Burgess Shale yet Pete? A horse in the Solnhofen? An indricothere in the Jehol? Bet you haven't even got off your backside to go and look.

Put or shut up!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:44 PM

"whether novel info can arise from mutations is unproven, last I heard, despite guests assertions to the contrary"

Fer Crissakes pete.

I know this is wasted on you, but here is just one example. There are thousands of others, and you will demand them all, and dismiss them all. And probably not understand much of what you read, but you will honestly admit that, yet still claim to be unconvinced. Ah well. I must try:

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract

snip----------------
Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.
snip-----------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:15 PM

Insulin can be from pigs but certainly here in The UK , it is synthetic, he says ... Trying not to start an Argument on the word synthetic. Many patients with type I diabetes are Muslim due to ethic predominance from certain cultures, many of which are 1st , 2nd, 3rd etc generation British.

Ok. A diversion.

Back on track and thinking of the Monty Python sketch, the word you are looking for is contradiction.

That word becomes relevant if you wish to enter the reality versus fantasy world of pious pete.

You know, working these days on healthcare, I am so glad to see people park their religion at the door in this field. Muslim men examining women and vice versa. Sikhs helping people with dietary needs alien to their faith.

In fact, the only radicals I come across is weird Christians imposing their values on others such as asking patients to pray with them or thinking a crucifix doesn't have the same infection risk as ties. (Rich Christians may have a point. 25c gold is rather antiseptic but the cheaper ones harbour spores.)

Yes, there are isolated examples in the press of refusing to dispense contraception or termination of pregnancy but there are enough clinicians to get around this and the papers tend to not report the striking off by professional bodies.

Do you know? The more I toss about with these BS threads the less respectable God delusion seems?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:47 PM

>>>a common designer is the alternative interpretation.
and what was that about Gods DNA !? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR THEOLOGY? <<<

A common designer who designed genes that appear to point to a long history of evolution, who says that man is in his image, but created a pig's heart and endocrine system and most every other system on the same basic design as man's?

You do know that Type 1 diabetics use insulin from pigs, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:40 PM

>>>jack,-mutations can result in "useful" info. no disagreement there.
whether novel info can arise from mutations is unproven, last I heard, despite guests assertions to the contrary.<<

I think that by definition, mutations are "novel." Whether they lead to "novel information" depends on the following, whether the mutation changes the genome of the offspring, whether the offspring survives the mutation, and whether the offspring gains a competitive advantage.

To say that is unproven is to deny the basic principles of genetics, biology, and statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:29 PM

"I asked you to "Point me to the section where it says kill everyone who disagrees with this dogma." in the works you quote. You just ignored the question."

You are asked Stim to defend an argument that he did not make. As you did with me. Why shouldn't he ignore it? I thought that point was addressed for all when I addressed it. Can you quote Stim saying that scientists urge people to kill?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:06 PM

From: GUEST,Stim - PM
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

"No I have not heard of scientific racism. I suspect it very much like militant atheism. A construct to make religious nutters feel better."

Really, Dave? Why would you think something like that? And do they let you go outside by yourself?

Followed by

From: GUEST,Stim - PM
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:23 PM

I am not arguing with you, Dave, just pointing things out so that anyone who is interested can follow up on them--if you'd Googled Shockley, or "The Bell Curve" or "Scientific Racism" you might have gotten my original point, and maybe even had something to say yourself, but you didn't.

Sorry for being sarcastic, but your statement about "religious nutters" had nothing to do with anything, and sometimes I yield to the impulse...

Adding contradiction to the already poor flow I'm, afraid Stim. Lets look at the record so far.

I asked you to "Point me to the section where it says kill everyone who disagrees with this dogma." in the works you quote. You just ignored the question.

You say "Anyone that is interested can look up etc. etc." Yes, anyone that is interested can. You are throwing them in the arena. You tell us where they preach hatred. Sidesteping the issue.

I answered a question, quite genuinely, with "No, I have not heard of them". No shame in not knowing. You imply I am not fit to be let out on my own because I don't know. Abuse instead of reason.

You say "religious nutters has nothing to do with anything". It has everything to do with what I have been saying. What would you call people who kill, maim and torture for their religion? I call them nutters. If any scientist urged others to do the same I would call them nutters too. Can you find us any?

You apologise for being sarcastic. I detect no sarcasm in your post. Trying to stop Jack quoting the rules at you by any chance?

One thing we can agree on. You are not arguing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:00 PM

you are not too far out , snail, in your assessment of me, except that as far as I can, I try to keep to the simpler arguments,- like all those likely to decay in lot less than millions of years, materials in dino bone. of course i'm far from an expert on genetics but what reading I have done reveals amazing complexity in the workings of a cell. just by accident! you got greater faith than me!

jack,-mutations can result in "useful" info. no disagreement there.
whether novel info can arise from mutations is unproven, last I heard, despite guests assertions to the contrary. maybe bill Nye will produce some in his debate today......I wont hold my breath!

your claim that all of life being interrelated ,in the sense of evolutionism is just an interpretation of the data. a common designer is the alternative interpretation.
and what was that about Gods DNA !? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR THEOLOGY?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:46 PM

"Oh dear. I'm almost beginning to sympathise with Steve. "

You're beginning to talk like him.

Simply saying that I am wrong is not an argument.

Not that I want an argument. But just saying that I am wrong is just pointless and rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:23 PM

I am not arguing with you, Dave, just pointing things out so that anyone who is interested can follow up on them--if you'd Googled Shockley, or "The Bell Curve" or "Scientific Racism" you might have gotten my original point, and maybe even had something to say yourself, but you didn't.

Sorry for being sarcastic, but your statement about "religious nutters" had nothing to do with anything, and sometimes I yield to the impulse...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:14 PM

Oh dear. I'm almost beginning to sympathise with Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 12:56 PM

No, I am trying to explain the science to pete by simplifying the examples. For example, I do not believe that the sun is an hourglass. But for the purpose of explaining that it is evidently more than 6,000 years old, I compared it to one.

I have no way of knowing obviously that for simple organisms and genes that all combinations of the 4 DNA letters have been tried. But I feel that pete's argument that no new "information" can be gained by random mutation is bogus because the DNA sequences mutable, and not super complex on the level of the individual gene and there are trillions of reproductive events so it is probable that all combinations have occurred and most have been dead ends weeded out by natural selection. Therefor, since different DNA sequences create different features in the organism and since many if not all possible sequences have existed due to mutation then it is not impossible, It is likely that mutation has "created" what pete would call "useful information."

On the other hand certain traits exist in the gene pool which are not common to all individuals. I have observed this first hand. A basic understanding of the principles of Natural Selection is all it takes to imagine a branching of the species as Mr. Wells did in his excellent book, The Time Machine.   


I felt that I had to explain such things in simple enough terms so that pete could not close discussion with a simple "I don't understand." That much worked. I got him to the point of basically saying that God could make the sun any way he wanted. Which is not, of course, and argument that fits the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 12:26 PM

Bum! I replied to Musket but must have messed up sending it. Can't be bothered to do it again.

Jack, have I understood you right? You are trying to convince pete with science that you've made up?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:44 AM

If I may, there seems to be a problem on this forum, and no doubt elsewhere, of missing the point and quibbling over definitions of specific words and phrases.

"You can only "let science down" by dishonest research or fraudulent use of the word,"

Musket, do you not understand the point that TheSnail was trying to make? The one about Mr. Shaw's arguing style losing arguments that he should be winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:24 AM

>>Just to take issue with the snail. You can't let science down but you can let religions down.<<<

One can certainly let down other people who believe in the integrity of the scientific community. One can damage the credibility of the scientific community. One can certainly abuse the credibility of scientific credentials by arguing in non evidential, unreasoning, unscientific ways.

Steve Shaw, for reasons already mentioned, is time after time, losing the argument to pete. To pete! (way to go pete for beating Steve with almost no facts on your side.) He can't continually claim to represent science and come up with no better argument than playground taunts and invective. Vilification is not argument. Simply claiming the other person is wrong is no real argument. It is just contradiction. I thought that Monty Python had settled this question many years ago. Think about it please. You will find that the Montys were right.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:10 AM

TheSnail.

"To the uninformed reader he seems quite credible. You could, with your superior knowledge, put him right. "

On this thread, my intended audience is pete. I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that, that if he has not accepted conventionally phrased scientific argument by now, he probably won't. Your mention of the Discovery Channel reflects my aim and not my sources. I'm trying to make up examples and analogies that are easy to understand without a scientific background. I am an interested layman, educated enough to read a scientific journal, with the help of a glossary. But on topics I have not formally studied, and kept up to date on, which at this stage of my life, practically all of them LOL it is a bit of a slog. For reasons already mentioned, I think it would be pointless to quote scientific writing to pete.

I do not have any confidence that Mr. Shaw can put me right. But since we are on the same side of the "Creation Science" argument, he can help me. Any cogent argument, the simpler the better, that the universe is more than 6000 years old presented without name calling and arrogance would be appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 07:11 AM

pete wrote Dawkins and I read Darwin. What am I like?

Dawkins has the advantage of being alive, being a professor, a scientist and standard text on evolutionary biology and especially genetics.

Darwin has the advantage of being dead hence he knows whether he or his wife got it right.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Just to take issue with the snail. You can't let science down but you can let religions down. After all,science just is, whilst religions require people to give credibility to man made constructs.

I note that when my thesis was subjected to a viva, I got it with dissent from one assessor. All of us in the room were "scientists" of various claim, but none of us let science down by disagreement. In fact, a key equation of mine has been refined since, and I sat on his viva. I was delighted to accept my oversights.

You can only "let science down" by dishonest research or fraudulent use of the word, "creationist science" being an oxymoron that springs to mind in the latter category.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:27 AM

Steve Shaw
Perhaps it's summat to do with the fact that I can't resist the presence of Wacko Jacko as I know that he'll always make li'l ol' me feel superior.

But Steve, you feel superior to everybody. When I tried to bring you up to date on scientific thought you didn't just dismiss the works of Professor Karl Popper but when I quoted people as diverse as Einstein and Dawkins in support of my case, you airily brushed them aside.

pete gets all his information from creationist websites and, on his own admission, doesn't really understand what he is talking about. He is totally clear about his belief in biblical truth. Everyone can see his position. There is nothing to be gained in debating with him.

I'm not sure where Jack gets his science from. The Discovery Channel? Quite what his position is or what point he is trying to make I don't know.

You, on the other hand, give the impression of not having read anything published after 1859. No need; Darwin said it all. You recently said 'I do have that excellent book' ('The Greatest Show on Earth'). Yes, but have you read it?

The problem is that Jack's version of science is partially right but somehow misses the target. To the uninformed reader he seems quite credible. You could, with your superior knowledge, put him right. Unfortunately the only response you seem to have available is playground abuse which you presumably learned in a long career as a schoolmaster. It's the technique you use with everyone who disagrees with you.

The result is that Jack, and sometimes even pete, are winning. You are letting science down.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:57 AM

Really, Dave? Why would you think something like that? And do they let you go outside by yourself?

Yes they do, Stim. That is the best argument you can come up with?

Sad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:02 PM

>>> I recommend that you do just a little research into Prof. Dawkins' career, then come back here and apologise.<<<

Mr. Shaw, I looked.

He is going to be in Austin for a dinner in April. Apparently he is the "the center of world thought," I couldn't find anything about the science he is working on. Would you care to please fill us in?

Or you could apologise to pete.

"For this fundraiser, space is limited and the purpose is to raise money, so tickets cost $1,000, with $900 being tax-deductible. Your donation helps the Richard Dawkins Foundation promote science and reason."

"We are glad to announce a new city. It is still possible to join an intimate dinner with Richard Dawkins! Spend a night at the center of world thought, dining with the man Prospect Magazine called the world's greatest thinker. "

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM

Stupid unsubstantiated remark.

But Wacko darling - how could one possibly substantiate the unsubstantiatable?!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:23 PM

Bugger. Always make....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:21 PM

honestly, I'm not really joining in this nonsense

Know summat, Snail? You're absolutely right. I don't know why I'm joining in with it either, except that, in a very odd way, it's fun. Hard to explain. Perhaps it's summat to do with the fact that I can't resist the presence of Wacko Jacko as I know that he'll always me li'l ol' me feel superior. Long may he continue to post, say I! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:15 PM

>>Wacko, babe, <<<


>>>it's sad to see you struggle so. This post of yours has nothing to do with your previous one or my response to it.<<<

Stupid unsubstantiated remark. Doing nothing but asserting that I am wrong loses you the argument every time. Every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:13 PM

I willingly concede that some clerics say hateful things and encourage terrorism. I believe in "hate speech laws" and and pleased to see violators in jail.

I willingly concede that most scientists don't preach at all, much less preach violence and most scientists who do preach, do so at the risk of their scientific credibility. Preaching is not the purpose of science.

I don't see clerics committing violent crimes.

I believe that a very small minority of clerics urge people to violence and I do not believe that all of religion can be blamed for that.

Likewise I believe that scientists are sometimes partly culpable for death and terror when their inventions and discoveries are misused. I did not come to this conclusion on my own. Alfred Nobel's guilt over his culpability is the reason for the Nobel prizes.

My position is that Science and religion are both useful, both generally a public good, that are sometimes misused.

OK?

Yeah. OK. But how shallow.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:08 PM

re jack to bill....dawkins is not a working scientist either..he,s a member of an evolutionist propaganda group!

This stupid remark reveals to all, once and for all, that you are a charlatan, an ignoramus and a complete idiot. I recommend that you do just a little research into Prof. Dawkins' career, then come back here and apologise. Or. preferably, disappear into a hole that you hoped would swallow you up. Preferably permanently, you twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:02 PM

>>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:28 AM

Without evidence, Wacko? And where is your evidence to support your claim that it's likely that "every possible combination has existed and competed"? That is such a nonsensical notion that it's almost beneath arguing with. Furthermore, you say "In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time." Not much to make sense of there either, is there? <<<

I am afraid that I made a logical argument argument which you have missed. It is a very very simple one. Are you arguing that it was not chance that created life? Are you arguing that some unknown force of intelligent design was limiting the number of mutations? Surely you are not arguing that in the billion or so years that there was only single celled life which implies billions of trillions of reproductive events that all possible combinations of the four letters that comprise DNA were not possible or even likely.

Are you implying that there has been only seven thousand years? If so you have made a valid point. If there was only 5 or 6 days from the inception of the universe to the emergence of terrestrial life In my humble opinion there would not have been time.

Please tell me what your theory of the evolution of life on this planet is. And please do not include the mind numbingly high number of replication events between the emergence of life and the beginning of recorded history in your calculation.
Wacko, babe, it's sad to see you struggle so. This post of yours has nothing to do with your previous one or my response to it. You appear to want to get sillier by the day. Entertaining enough in its way, but I'm beginning to get concerned for you. It's the way I am, old boy...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

"No I have not heard of scientific racism. I suspect it very much like militant atheism. A construct to make religious nutters feel better."

Really, Dave? Why would you think something like that? And do they let you go outside by yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 05:58 PM

I believe that a very small minority of clerics urge people to violence and I do not believe that all of religion can be blamed for that.

I do not believe that all religion can be blamed either, Jack. Which is why I am not blaming all religion. I am simply pointing out that some clerics do while the 'high priests' of science do no such thing.

I believe that scientists are sometimes partly culpable for death and terror when their inventions and discoveries are misused.

So, once again, is Max partly culpable for the misuse of Mudcat that rail against?

Stim. No I have not heard of scientific racism. I suspect it very much like militant atheism. A construct to make religious nutters feel better. I will quite happily accept that the book you quote is real. Point me to the section where it says kill everyone who disagrees with this dogma.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:04 PM

Honestly, I'm not really joining in this nonsense but I thought I'd just throw this in -

The Crusades were military campaigns conducted under the sanction of the Latin Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages through to the end of the Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the first crusade, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:22 PM

>>"...the theory, is that, given enough millennia todays child could be the distant ancestor of a completely different creature via countless imperceptable changes!?"<<<

not a completely different creature, but over say, a million years certainly as different from us as we are from apes.

Have you read Mr. Well's marvelous story "the Time Machine?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:12 PM

A friendly tip to Musket.. One of the reasons that I quote the things I am responding to is so that a misread on my part doesn't lead me to an error that makes me look like a donkey.

>>"re jack to bill....dawkins is not a working scientist either..he,s a member of an evolutionist propaganda group!"<<

>>"pete says, admittedly tongue in cheek that Darwin isn't a working scientist. Correct, he is dead. Just like your God. He requires faith in order to exist. Ergo he doesn't. "<<

pete, It might not surprise you that I partly agree with you on Dawkins He is not a working scientist. But I would not say "an evolutionist propaganda group" I would say an anti-religion propaganda group. And since he is the founder and makes a good deal of money on his speaking and books I would say, only partly tongue in cheek he is an anti-religion entrepreneur.

I think that I can say with confidence that when Dawkins says in effect that religious schooling is child abuse, Bill does not give that extra credence because it comes from a former biologist. Just as Bill is warning us not to take word of your guy because he used to be a chemist.

A true "creation scientist" would be examining the data that we have and comparing it to the "Scientific theory" that the world was created in six days. Considering that according to the story "days" as we scientifically know them did not exist until the fourth day, the "Scientific theory" of Biblical Creation cannot exist.

Its nonsense pete, all nonsense. Like Adam being created "fully formed out of clay. Genetically we are not separate and above the animals. If God formed man in his own image then 98% of God's DNA is the same as that of a chimp. People used to think that other races of men were inferior to others. Scientists has found that there is far more variation among members of one race than between races.

The DNA plan that made you shares a vast amount of information with that of a mouse. That's why we can do medical experiments on mice. You share more with a pig that's why a pig's heart can work in a human body. You share even more with a chimp. That is why David Cameron can be your Prime Minister. .... Just kidding... but some Chimps can do sign language. You can try to believe that Adam was formed from clay and Eve from his rib. But there is zero scientific evidence to support that. The scientific evidence indicates that all life on this planet is interrelated. The pattern for male female interaction for reproduction existed long before people did. You can go and read what your former chemist has to say about our very genes pointing to increasing complexity over a very long time but if you honestly look at all the evidence, your only logical play is, like you did with the sun and Adam is to say that God Created everything to appear as if the Universe's history is much much older than the Bible says it is. So to say that every thing is as it says in the Bible and not as scientist say it is you are calling God a liar. Who, like a hypocritical parent is telling us, his children, "Don't believe what you see with your eyes, believe what I say in this book."

You may believe in a God like that. I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:59 PM

Dave the Gnome says "I don't know how else to say that some clerics preach hate. No scientists do." Haven't you ever heard of "Scientific Racism"? Championing the idea of a master race, didn't go out of style with the Nazis.

It's been advanced by such luminaries as Nobel Prize winning Physicist William Shockley, andmost very recently advocated in The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life is a 1994 book by American psychologist Richard J. Hernstein and American political scientist Charles Murray. Columnist Bob Herbert, writing for The New York Times, described the book as "a scabrous piece of racial pornography masquerading as serious scholarship." "Mr. Murray can protest all he wants," wrote Herbert; "his book is just a genteel way of calling somebody a nigger."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:19 PM

"...the theory, is that, given enough millennia todays child could be the distant ancestor of a completely different creature via countless imperceptable changes!?"

Yes! You've got it!

"...either way unproven, so a faith position."

Not true. There are many, many directly observed, documented, peer-reviewed, and most importantly *predictive* examples involving multiple completely idependent lines of evidence.

Now you will demand them (but there are too many to even begin), and why bother because you will deny them all (by definition - because you hold a faith position).

But it is encouraging that you at least understand the theory that you refuse to even consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:07 PM

I willingly concede that some clerics say hateful things and encourage terrorism. I believe in "hate speech laws" and and pleased to see violators in jail.

I willingly concede that most scientists don't preach at all, much less preach violence and most scientists who do preach, do so at the risk of their scientific credibility. Preaching is not the purpose of science.

I don't see clerics committing violent crimes.

I believe that a very small minority of clerics urge people to violence and I do not believe that all of religion can be blamed for that.

Likewise I believe that scientists are sometimes partly culpable for death and terror when their inventions and discoveries are misused. I did not come to this conclusion on my own. Alfred Nobel's guilt over his culpability is the reason for the Nobel prizes.

My position is that Science and religion are both useful, both generally a public good, that are sometimes misused.

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:03 PM

pete says, admittedly tongue in cheek that Darwin isn't a working scientist. Correct, he is dead. Just like your God. He requires faith in order to exist. Ergo he doesn't.

Some of the weird claims around this thread, not just pete, put benign intent on religion. That is perhaps more sinister than pete's cut and paste cum bullshit. Organised religion is about conformity and control. Everything from loose reasoning for pogroms to abusing children through control.

Fully supported by gullible sanctimonious people who may well be nice people in themselves, but blinkered by their group delusion.

That's why religion is more radical in countries where radical politics are the norm, such as Middle East, USA etc. With the dishonourable exception of China, have you noticed that countries where religion is important are the same ones that execute their citizens?

Still in France so reading Le Monde each day. A coalition of nazi sympathisers, non aligned fascists and the Catholic Church are organising marches saying gays and liberals are to blame for everything you can't pin on Jews.

Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 11:34 AM

" ...the clerics usually don't do anything but give justification for things the killers already want to do."

The question of how far "usually" extends makes it difficult to determine just how right or wrong that opinion is. But I submit that in a very significant number of instances, the things that killers want to do are largely determined by the fact that they have been indoctrinated from birth to accept what they hear from the clerics of their particular faith with little or no critical thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 11:19 AM

dmcg - sorry, but I,m not sure that I grasped the question in your post ,so the following may miss the mark.
I am referring to the limits of genetic information. certainly the child will not be identical to the father , but the genetic information obviously is not cloning, but within the gene pool [if that's the right term] there will be variation ,even to the extent of a complete colour change very occasionally . but there are limits, ie beyond the organism concerned. to insist that new information can arise , beyond the limits of the organism is purely philosophically driven if there are not proven instances to cite. presumably the theory, is that, given enough millennia todays child could be the distant ancestor of a completely different creature via countless imperceptable changes!? either way unproven, so a faith position.

I am not qualified, jack, to gainsay the technical details of the sun's workings but I see nothing amiss in God forming a fully functioning sun, the composition of which being exactly right for it's stability and usefulness to the earth. this is not deception, because he has told us when he made it...ie day 4 of creation week.
btw - what age was adam when God formed him ?. and what age did he appear to be, by looking at him ?.
answer- one day on the first,   and we can only guess at the second.

steve - I would not know if jack is talking tripe, only that you did not validate that opinion by saying why.

re jack to bill....dawkins is not a working scientist either..he,s a member of an evolutionist propaganda group!

20 times, bill. who's counting.
I am upfront on my presuppositions. you don't admit or recognize yours. even gould said that the idea of a completely impartial scientist is self serving myth.
I am offering specific evidence, like soft tissue etc in dino bone, and you continue to claim authority because most scientists subscribe to the same belief. that proves nothing except a lot of people believe the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 09:27 AM

You are insisting on this stance in the face of being told otherwise.


Only by you, Jack, only by you. Is it to with being religious, this voice in the wilderness thing? One thing we can agree on. We are speaking a different language but I will give it one more try. Clerics are the leaders of their religious community. Scientists are leaders in their field. I don't know how else to say that some clerics preach hate. No scientists do. The conclusion is quite plain for all to see except you apparently.



DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:50 AM

>>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:28 AM

Without evidence, Wacko? And where is your evidence to support your claim that it's likely that "every possible combination has existed and competed"? That is such a nonsensical notion that it's almost beneath arguing with. Furthermore, you say "In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time." Not much to make sense of there either, is there? <<<

I am afraid that I made a logical argument argument which you have missed. It is a very very simple one. Are you arguing that it was not chance that created life? Are you arguing that some unknown force of intelligent design was limiting the number of mutations? Surely you are not arguing that in the billion or so years that there was only single celled life which implies billions of trillions of reproductive events that all possible combinations of the four letters that comprise DNA were not possible or even likely.

Are you implying that there has been only seven thousand years? If so you have made a valid point. If there was only 5 or 6 days from the inception of the universe to the emergence of terrestrial life In my humble opinion there would not have been time.

Please tell me what your theory of the evolution of life on this planet is. And please do not include the mind numbingly high number of replication events between the emergence of life and the beginning of recorded history in your calculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:33 AM

And do regard "Wacko" as no more than an affectionate nickname. Come to think of it, you are just about the only person in the world to call me "Mr Shaw" (at least after the first time), but I'm not complaining. Or "Shaw" even. <>shrug

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:31 AM

Dave, You are saying that "Urging" is the same thing as actually killing. You are insisting on this stance in the face of being told otherwise.

I fear this is a gap in logic that you and I cannot bridge.   

And I imagine if we do happen bridge it I fear that an attempt will then be made to say that because some people "preach hate" then all religious people are complicit in preaching hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:28 AM

Without evidence, Wacko? And where is your evidence to support your claim that it's likely that "every possible combination has existed and competed"? That is such a nonsensical notion that it's almost beneath arguing with. Furthermore, you say "In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time." Not much to make sense of there either, is there?